Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
060788 Planning
AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 7, 1988 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 Case 88-6- Request for a Three (3) Percent Variance to the Thirty-five (35) Percent Green Area Required in an I-1 Zoning District, 7301 36th Avenue North, AFP Partners/Richard Curry, Petitioner 3.2 Case 88-10 - Request for a Variance of 17 Parking Spaces to the Required 36 for a Restaurant at 7181 42nd Avenue North, Grobe's Cafe/Larry Sandberg, Petitioner 3.3 · Case 88-12 - Request for Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval, 8801-8821 Science Center Drive, Prudential Insurance Co. of America/Attracta Sign, Petitioners 3.4 Case 88-15 - Request for a Text Amendment to Allow Religious Buildings in an I-1 (Limited Industrial) Zoning District at 9000 Science Center Drive, Church of the Open Door/Timm Lundberg, Petitioner 3.5 Case 88-16 - Request for Preliminary Plat Approval and a Variance of Four Feet to the Required Seventy-Five Foot Lot Width at 8115 and 8121 62nd Avenue North, Carlton T. Swartwood, Petitioner 3.6 Case 88-17 - Request for a Variance of Five Feet to the Required Ten Foot Setback for Parking/Driving Lane in a Limited Industrial Zoning District, and Construction Approval at 9401 Science Center Drive, Hoyt Development, Petitioner 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee 4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee 5. OLD BUSINESS Planning Commission Agenda June 7, 1988 Page -2- 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of May 3, 1988. 6.2 Review of City Council Minutes of April 25, 1988, and May 9, 1988 6.3 Review of HRA Minutes of April 25, 1988 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM~ DATE: June 3, 1988 TO: Planning Commission FROM: M. Jeannine Dunn, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Planning Case 88-6 On Friday afternoon, June 3, 1988, staff received the attached letter from Mr. Dick Curry regarding the green space at 7301 37th Avenue North. This was received after the case report was prepared. The Planning Commission asked for a lot survey. This letter indicates what exists at the site. Staff will review and confirm these calculations prior to the Commission meeting on June 7, 1988. · I000 EAST 1461lt STREET. BURNSVILL. E, MINNE 0 5 · June 3, 1988 Mr. Richard Curry 8000 Towerline Avenue Bloc~ington, Minnesosta 55438 RE: All-American Self Storage Site 36th Nevada Avenue New Hope, Minnesota Dear Mr. Curry, As per your request, we have inspected the above referenced site and as provided by you the Marila and Associates site plan dated September 11, 1984, agrees with the Land Surveyors, Inc. As-built dated June 18, 1986. From the above we have prepared the following computations: Green Area Original ly Provided: 64,767 S.F. Additional Area Paved in excess of Original Plan: 200 ft. x 10 ft = 2,000 S.F. Plus: (60 ft + 55 ft) x 5ft = 575 Total Excess of Hard Surface = 2,575 S.F. Green Area Presently on Site: 64,767 - 2,575 = 62,192 S.F. Proposed Reduction of Paving = (Added Green Area) (60 ft + 55 ft + 200 ft) x 3.0' = + 945 S.F. Adjusted Final Green Area = 63,137 S.F. Final Adjusted Green Area Percentage: = 63,137 ~. 182,287 = 34.6% >Rounding to Nearest Even Whole % = 35% Since_rely, .~ ~ R~lp~' ~. Wa~r/~E ' City of New Hope Planning Case Report Planning Case: 88-6 Request: Three percent variance to the required 35 percent green area in an I-1 zoning district Location: 7301 36th Avenue North Zoning: I-1 Petitioner: AFP Partners/Richard Curry Date: June 7, 1988 CASE UPDATE 1. The Planning Commission tabled this case at its March 1, 1988, April 5, 1988, and May 3, 1988 meetings. Staff has attached minutes of these meetings to the planning case report. 2. The Planning Commission asked the petitioner to provide an accurate as-built survey of the property. Staff has not received this to date.' 3. In regard to the green space in an I-1 zoning district, Section 4.145(3) of the City Code states: "Not less than 35 percent of the lot, parcel, or tract of land shall remain as a grass plot~, including shrubbery, plantings or fencing, and shall be landscaped. The word "landscaped" means a controlled surface and grade and plantings to allow a smooth surface flow and being under continual maintenance for the preservation of scenic harmony." The petitioner's proposal to lease a portion of the Soo Line Railroad property will not meet the green space requirement. The green space is calculated on the lot or tract of land as a single piece of property. In order to utilize the railroad property to meet the green space requirement, the petitioner would have to purchase the property and combine the parcels through the platting process. Planning Case 88-10 June 7, 1988 Page -2- RECOMMENDATION Staff does not believe that the petitioner is attempting to correct the zoning violation in good faith. Staff recommends denial of the request for a three (3) percent variance to the required thirty-five (35) percent green area at 7301 36th Avenue North as presented in Planning Case 88-6 because the petitioner has not presented evidence that demonstrates that the variance criteria established in Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances has been met. Attachments: Planning Commission Minutes (5/3/88) Planning Case Report (5/3/88) Planning Case Report (4/5/88) City of New Hope Planning Case R~port Planning Case: 88-6 Request: Three percent variance to the required 35 percent green area in an I-1 zoning district Location: 7301 36th Avenue North Zoning: I-1 Petitioner: AFP Partners/Richard Curry Date: May 3, 1988 CASE UPDATE 1. The Planning Commission tabled this case at its March 1, 1988 meeting and its April 5, 1988 meeting. Staff has attached minutes of these meetings to the planning case report. 2. The petitioner was encouraged to research the option of purchasing property from either Soo Line Railroad or the property located at 3531 Nevada Avenue (VIDCO) so that he could expand his existing lot to meet the green space requirement. Staff has reviewed the VIDCO property and found that with its outdoor storage, it is at 35 percent green area and therefore could not.sell any of its property and remain in compliance~with the code. The petitioner contacted staff on April 29, 1988, and informed us that he is working with the Soo Line to lease a portion of the adjacent property as an easement for green space. The City has no provision in its code to "share" green space. Industrial lots must stand alone in calculating the required green area. The petitioner would need to purchase this additional property and consolidate it with the existing lot to meet the 35 percent green area requirement. RECOMMENDATION The petitioner may need additional time to pursue the acquisition of additional property from the Soo Line Railroad. As a result, the Commission may wish to consider tabling Planning Case 88-6 until June 7, 1988. Planning Case 88-6 May 3, 1988 Page -2- If additional land acquisition is not a possibility, staff recommends denial of the request for a three percent variance to the required thirty-five percent green area at 7301 36th Avenue North, as presented in Planning Case 88-6, because the petitioner has not presented evidence that demonstrates that the variance criteria established in Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code of ordinances has not been met. Attachments: Planning Commission Minutes (4-5-88) Planning Case Report (4-5-88) Planning Case Report (3-1-88) CiTY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NO~H HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING O]~IISSION ~ May 3, 1988 CAT.T. TO OROER A regular meeting of the Planning C~,,~ssion of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, May 3, 1988 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. Tne meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Cameron. ROLL CAT2'. Present: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, C~a PC 88-6 C~a~ Cameron noted that this had been before the REQUEST FOR 3% G~k~N Planning C~.u~ssion in April and had been tabled. Full dis- AREA VARIANCE AT discussion had taken place at that meeting. He asked what 7301 36th AVS~qUE N. what options Mr. Curry now proposed. Mr. Curry stated that he had discovered that t2~e property directly to the south of his property W--dS presently at 35% green and the owners could not sell him property. He has explored leasing some land from the railroad to satisfy the green area requirement. He could also tartan turf the driveway and turn it back into green area. He could also increase the landscaping on site. In his opinion, he could not go back to the-original plan. He noted that even if he did restore the green, tenants would still drive on the ~qairman Cameron cuiu,~nted that as the owner he felt he could certainly prohibit cars from being on the green area, even if it involved sinking some posts into the ground. Mr. Curry said that economically he could not restore that area to green. Taxes had already increased on the property. Com,~issioner Sonsin clarified with staff that the City of New Hope had never approved the leasing of additional property to satisfy a green area requirement. It w-as noted that the property would have to be purchased outright. He questioned whether there was not some other solution. Mr. Curry said he could perhaps re-measure the property. He added that he w~s also forced to store water on site. If he measured the slopes on the site perhaps there would be enough -2- Ms. Dunn stated that the ~calculations had to be made by measuring on the flat ground on the site. Mr. Curry suggested tartan turf over the driveway or perhaps plugs in the asphalt. Commissioner Gundershaug asked whether the petitioner knew exactly how much green area he had on site? Ms. Dunn said that what had been submitted to city staff w~s a lot survey that did not designate the actual areas of green, blacktop, or development. ~ne city would prefer to have an as-built survey submitted. C~airman Cameron suggested that the petitioner provide a reliable and accurate set of figures to the city indicating the percentages of usage on the site before the next Cu~u~H ssion meeting. MOTION Co~u~issioner Sonsin made a motion ~hling Case 88-6 until the meeting of June 7, 1988. C~m~,~ssioner Gundershaug secor~. Voting in favor: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, C~a Voting against: None PC 88-9 Dr. Randall Herman stated he was requesting the ~ to allow R~ FOR (/3P FOR him to construct a veterinary clinic at 3709 Winnetka North. ~ ~.rNIC AT The zoning on the site is R-O. Using a model of the proposed 3709 W]/qNETKA N. building he explained the layout to the Cum,~,~ssion. ' The building will face Winnetka Avenue. There will be parking to the south and a w~lkout at the rear. The upper level will be 340 sc~are feet. There will be a waiting room/reception area, four ~ rooms, a treatment area, and an office and conference area. There will also be an area for surgery and radiation therapy. He will have a small area for animals who must be hospitalized. His present plans for the basement area are to use it for kennels and a grooming room. There will be no outside kennels. Dr. Herman distributed photographs of a building in another area with a similar exterior to what he was proposing. The exterior materials will be break off block and a wood shake roof. The windows in the animal areas will not open and there should be no noise pollution. The building will be completely air conditioned. Planning Commission Minutes May 3, 1988 CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401XYLON AVENUE NOR1/q HENNEPIN~, MINNESCIEA55428 PLANN/~G~I~~ April 5, 1988 CATZ, ~ ~ A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope was held on Tuesday, April 5, 1988 at the New Hope City Hall, 4401 Xylon Avenue North. The meeting was called to order by ChaLrman Cameron at 7:30 p.m. I~DLL CATS. Present: Anderson, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, C~a Absent: Lutts, Friedrich ~JBLIC HEARING Ri5f PC 88-6 Mr. Richard Curry stated he was requesting a variance of the ~OR 3% G~VFR green area requirement on the prDperty at 7301 36th Avenue AREA VARIANCE AT He referred to a letter he had written to Doug Sandstad the 7301 36th AV~qUE N. the city's Building Official regarding the problem. He noted that it ~as his understanding that variances were not granted for economic reasons. He added that the petitioners had acquired 2 1/2 acres by Right of Purchase Agreement and had appeared before the City Council and received unofficial indication that expansion of that particular self storage unit would be approved. Subsequently a moratorium had been established. This expansion would have made this property part of a co~m~Dn driveway. ~nen the moratorium w-us lifted, a new ordinance w~s created prohibiting the construction of any other ~self storage units in the city. He had a building full of tenants on either side and it would be ~t impossible, in his opinion, to return that building to its original condition. He stated he would be willing to add to the landscaping on the site, if necessary. He felt that they had created a site that did not look like typical mini- storage units. Co','t,,~issioner Sonsin stated he felt that it appeared to him that there had been some "cross over" in procedure. He was concerned about whether construction approval had been given by the city. He felt that the changes made in the building had led directly to the current problem. The city had not baen notified that the building plans had been changed. Mr. Curry stated that all of the buildings had been designed to be "clear span" which would allow the adjusting of size of unit, according to demand. Cu~,~ssioner Sonsin noted ~that had Mr. Curry checked with the city staff before proceeding with changes, the present problem might have been avoided. Mr. Curry noted that one could not always predict the market. Cu~L,,L~ssioner Sonsin replied that it was this deviation, however, that had led to the violation of the green space requirement. He asked the petitioner whether he had given any consideration to acquiring additional property to the south? Mr. Curry stated that the property to the south now belonged to In response to a question from Cu~L.~,~ssioner Sonsin, Ms. Dunn stated that it was the policy of the city that each individual piece of property had to stand on its own in regard to green space, and two separate properties could not be combined to create a total green space that met code re~]~rements. C~L.~,~ssioner Sonsin asked how the petitioner might increase the landscaping on the site? Mr. Curry said he could perhaps add some trees or shrubs along Nevada Avenue. He felt that was where they would do the most good. Cu~,,,~ ssioner Gundershaug confirmed with staff that the petitioner had not been req~]]red to obtain a building permit for interior modifying. He noted that staff had requested an up to date survey of the site which would show accurately where the blacktop was and exactly how much green space did exist. He asked whether this had been received? Ms. Dunn stated that the survey presently on file wi'th the city did not show the modifications. It was the original survey, submitted when original approval had been given. Mr. Curry stated he had an "as built" survey. Cu~t,~,~ssioner Gundershaug asked exactly how much green space the site was short? Mr. Curry replied that he had blacktopped 2500 square feet. Otherwise it was built pretty much according to the original plans. MS. Dunn stated that staff had . modified the survey to illustrate the changes and the blacktop as installed. ~nese modifications reduce the provided green space by 3%. Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 1988 C~,,~Hssioner Gundershaug inquired what was on that side of the Mr. Curry said there were narrow stalls, and that originally there had been a walkway, 50 feet f¥om each end. %hose were shorter units. The building is 30 feet deep. When the tenants drove through there, they were putting one wheel on the walkway. They had also ended up with a demand for smaller C<~m~,{ssioner Gundermhaug noted they could put up a fence to keep tenants from driving on the waJJcw~y. C~u~,~ssioner Anderson confirmed with Mr. Brixius, of the Consulting firm, that the doors on this unit did not need to be He then inqp]~red as to whether permits were not required for the blacktopping? Mr. Brixius stated any change to the site required a building permit. The changes on this site had been made without the knowledge of city staff. In response to a question f¥om Co~m~Jssioner Anderson regarding any other units on site that could be modified in a similar manner, Mr. Curry stated the other units were already smaller units and were all double-sided. Co~u~,~ssioner Anderson stated he would be more comfortm_ble with this site, if more green space could be created between the two properties. He was not inclined to go along with what the petitioner had already done. He did not feel that the Planning Coz~u~,~ssion, or the city, were obligated to support this. He asked whether the petitioner could get an easement for the neighboring property? Mr. Curry stated he would prefer to look at any alternatives. Discussion held regarding the requirements for pulling aa building permit. Ms. Dunn stated that the city had adopted the Uniform Building Code. She noted that she would have the Building Official prepare a summary of when building permits were required for the Corn, mission. Coz~u~,~ssioner ~ stated he wished to defer considerntion of Planning CommissionMinutes April 5, 1988 this case for one month. In his opinion the addition of the doors on the south side of the units, constituted a major structural change and should have rec~i~ed a building permit. Mr. Curry said they didn't do anything but add doors, did not change the structure. Co~missioner Gundershaug stated he was bothered by the green space and felt that it should be returned to 35%. He wanted to know exactly how much green there was on site before acting on this request. He was not in favor of granting a variance for There was no one present in reqard to this case. Mr. Curry asked whether the landscaping could be intensified toward the street? Chairmmn Cameron stated t_hat the requirement for 35% green space was an almost inviolate rule in the City of New Hope. The city had really tried to stick to this rule, and wished to treat all citizens the same. He personally could not recall the Planning Commission ever granting a green space variance such as was being requested. He also felt that such a variance would create a future precedent. He questioned whether anyone on the Co~,~,~ssion would vote in favor of such a variance. He was willing to give the petitioner an extension to explore other options. lCDTION Motion by Commissioner Anderson to table Planning Case 88-6 · urrk~ ] th~ meeting of May 3, 1988. Commissioner Sonsin Voting in favor: Anderson, Sonsin, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Oja Voting against: None Absent: Friedrich, Lutts PC 88-9 Ms. Dunn stated that the petitioner had requested that ~ FOR OJP TO consideration of th_is request be tabled until the Planning CDNETRUCE VEvFP~NAR~ Commission meeting in May. CLINIC AT 3709 W//qNgTIqk NO. F~ION Motion by Commissioner Edwards to table Case 88-9 until th~ meetir~ of May 3, 1988. Co~m~ssioner Sonsin secor~. Planning Corm~i,~ssion Minutes April 5, 1988 city of New Hope Planning Case Report Planning Case: 88-6 Request: Three percent variance to the required 35 percent green area in an I-1 zone Location: 7301 36th Avenue North Zoning: I-1 Petitioner: AFP Partners/Richard Curry Date: April 5, 1988 Background 1. The Planning Commission tabled this case at its March 1, 1988 meeting to April 5, 1988. The petitioner was not in attendance at that meeting. 2. Staff has notified the petitioner of the April 5, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. 3. No new information relevant to the case has been submitted to staff since the preparation of the March 1, 1988 Planning Case Report. The March 1, 1988 Planning Case Report is attached. Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the request for a three percent variance to the required thirty-five percent green area at 7301 36th Avenue North as presented in Planning Case 88-6 because the petitioner has not presented evidence that demonstrates that the variance criteria established in Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances has been met. Attachments: Planning Case Report (1 March 1988) Application (8 February 1988) David Godrich letter (2 February 1988) Richard Curry letter (19 January 1988) Building official letter (22 September 1987) Plans City of New Hope Planning Case Report Planning Case: 88-6 Request: Three percent variance to the required 35 percent green area in an I-1 zone Location: 7301 36th Avenue North Zoning: I-1 Petitioner: AFP Partners/Richard Curry Date: March 1, 1988 Backqround 1. The petitioner is requesting a three percent variance to the required 35 percent green area in an I-1 zoning district, pursuant to Section 4.145(3) of the New Hope Code. 2. The construction approval for this development was authorized in 1984 with no variances. The building permit was issued in September 13, 1984. The certificate of occupancy was issued on August 14, 1985. 3. In 1987, ~he Building Official found that changes had been made to the site that were not in accordance with the approved plans. The Building Officials September 22, 1987 letter is attached. The basic problem is that the south yard has been covered with asphalt pavement in order to provide a.ccess to an e~tir~ row of new storage bays on the south side of Building'#1. This has effectively reduced the green area to 31 percent or 32 percent. Section 4.145(3) of the New Hope Code requires that ,35 percent of the lot, parcel or tract shall remain as a grass plot..." 4. The Building Official sent one subsequent letter serving as a final warning on ordinance violation, dated January 11, 1988 ordering that the green area be restored, or that the petitioner file an application for a variance. 5. Property owners within 350 feet have been notified to date, staff has received no comment. Analysis 1. Staff has not been provided with a lot survey. Therefore, the 3 percent reduction in green area is an estimate. 2.. Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances describes the purpose of a variance. A variance may be approved by the City Council if it can find~undue hardship. A variance should not be approved purely for economic reasons. 3. Richard Curry's letter, dated January 19, 1988, and attached to this report discusses the rationale for the variance, and the purpose for the change of plans. 4. Staff is concerned with the precedent that approval of this case might set. Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the request for a three percent variance to the required thirty-five percent green area at 7301 36th Avenue North as presented in Planning Case 88-6. Attachments: Application (8 February 1988) David Godrich letter (2 February 1988) Richard Curry letter (19 January 1988) Building Official letter (22 September 1987) Plans g ~_~ APPLICATION TO PLANNIN'G COMMISSION I ' City of New Hope' .... .... C~;[ rill0 j 4401 xylon Avenue N~rt.h ,. , . ......... . ~[~E lvL~ B~ Street Location of Property: 7301 -- 36th Avenue North Legal Description of Property: LQt 1~ B1Qck 1, Stremel Addition OWNER OF) Name: AFP Partners Phone: RECORD } ~L_i.6S.~..p~l_r~$_..~;, .... , .. Address: P.O. Box 22630, Long Beach, CA 90801 APPLICA~T (If Other Than Owner) Name: Richard Cllrr~ Phone: 829-0100 .......................... Aa~r-e~s: 8000, To,wn Line Avenue, Suite 203, Bloomington 55431 Nature of Legal or Equitable Interest of Applicant: Property Manager TYPE OF REQUEST: ~.~e~n Area Variance Description of Request: AQDroximately 2500 Square feet, in reduction of green area - from approved site plan (see attached leter) ' '- Wh? Should Request be Granted: See attached letter Applicant acknowledges r~a~ s/he understanos that 0e~ore th'-s requesu can De COnS~e£ed an-./or approvec, ali fees, including the Dasic zonlnq fee ano any zoning ceDosrs must ~e pa~d rd the City and t~a~, if additional fees are required to cover costs ~ncurre~ ma~a~er kas a rip-hr ~o reculre addlr~o~al oavme~r. Signed: Fee Owner Con~ract for Oee= Owner ~ ~ : .- ~ '; FOR C~T¥ USE ONLY Evidence of Ownership Submztted: Yes~ No =. Required Cert~f~eO Lot Survey: Yes /No ~'~ Required Legal Description Adequate: Yes~ No Leqal Ad Required: Yeu No Date of Desl. grl and Revtew Dare of Planning Commission Meeting: Approved: Den~ed:~ Hy l'lannl, ng Comml. sslon on: Approved:~ Den~ed:__ By Counc~! on: SuP]eot to the followin~ conditions: :.~ :' .... :. .._. .. . .. ... AUGUST FINANCIAL CORPORATION Long Beach. CA 90801-5630 l;t -. ...... (213) 424-5100... . . F~'I~ 8 February 2, 1988 Mr. Doug Sandstad -- --~ 7~r:-. Building Official/Zoning k~inistratOr City of New Hope _z ........ i .......... - ...... 4401 Xylen Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 RE: 7301-36TH AVENUE NORTH/MINI-WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT Dear~ -'Mr.-' Sandstad: Thank you for the c0urte's~ you extended to me over the telephone February 1, 1988. _ In connection with the Application which you have received, in part only, for a Conditional Use Variance, I express to you two positions, as we discussed. 1. Although A,F.P. Partner's signature did not appear on the Application, A.F;P. Partners supports the application for such variance.· 2. As is always possible,.,the a. pplication may be rejected by both the Planning Commission and for the City Council of New Hope, and we are expressing concern as such a prospect. For obvious reasons, we cannot burden you with the legal ramifications and consequences, in the event of the latter event, above, nonetheless you may rest assured that we will use every effort to bring the property into complete compliance, as is required by law. Very tr~y yours, David W. K. Godri,ch Vice President DG: jcb ' "'.'c. o.."~'~,~'"&'z " · y?.'~ .... . .... --' SELF STORAGE [ ALLAMERIC;~N J January 19, 19S8 Mr. Douglas Sandstead CITY OF NEW HOPE Building Inspections Department 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 .... ' Dear Doug, · lWe would like to.request a variance from the required green area requirement at All American Self Storage, New Hope, Minnesota. As you are aware, we blacktopped approximately 10' x 200', and two areas of 5' x 50', or a total of approximately 2500 square feet, which is a deviation from the'approved'plan of 2500 square feet. · There are three reasons for our doing this. First of all, as you will see on the original plan, we have 3 perimeter, or one-sided buildings. This.original layout gave us a higher percent of 10x30 units than the market would absorb. We found it necessary to remodel 20 of those 10x30 units into smaller, more rentable units. Secondly, the approved plan. showed 50' of walkway on both of the east and west ends of Building 1. Those customers ~,.a~ ~ nad' ~enzed the units adjacent to the walks were driving with one wheel on the walkway, and one wheel on the ground, thus becoming unsatisfactory. Lastly, at the time this was done, we had a signed purchase agreement for the 2½ acres of land south of our facility. It was our intent to enlarge the facility. We hadasked the council informally for an opinion if we would be allowed to'do So. We ~ere given an affirmative answer, and to apply upon the expiration of the moratorium. As you are aware, when the moratorium expired, a new ordinance was enacted. With very strict requirements for self-storage, it made it impossible for us to complete the transactions. It was our intent that the remodeling would have no impact on any requirements because it would all become part of a larger facility, and this area would become a driveway. I hope this gives you some of our reasoning and gives you a better understanding of what happened and why. ~R~chard R. Curry' R~C/k 8000 TOWN LINE AVENUE, SUITE 203, BLOOMINGTON, MN. 55438 PHONE: (612i 829-0100 ~ ~ ~ 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533-1521 September 22, 1987 AFP Partners August Financial P. O. Box 22630 Long Beach, CA' 90801 ..= ...... Attni P.'-'Pan-' ....... : ..... .. Regarding: 7301 36th Avenue North, Hini-Warehouse Development Dear Property Owner: My routine inspection last week of the warehouse construction site adjacent to your property revealed a serious problem I must bring to your attention; and that you must correct. Planning case 84-12 was approved in 1984 for the construction of seven (7) mini-warehouse buildings including a caretaker unit, with a site plan ~nat had a landscaped ratio of 35. ~ 5,0. I have attached a reduced copy of the approved site plan. You will note that the south ,,~d of the ~~" inc of landscaped green area with the exception of three (3) parking stalls 9 feet wide and two (2) short narrow sidewalks adjacent to Building ~1 as highligt]ted by me on the attachment. In addition, please note the copy of the elevation drawing of Building #1 which included (in 1984) no doors or access on the central maj6r portion of the same building. All access was to be from the north driveway area away from the south.pr.operty line. As of today, virtually all of th'e sou[h yard has been coveF~5 Wi~h asphalt pavement in order to pro- vide access to an entire row of new doors and storage bays on the south side of Building #1; thereby-reducing the green ratio on the property to an estima- ted 31 or 32%.. Our city ordinance minimum of 35% landscaping is no longer met. Your are therefore required to restore the original condition of said property as approved by our planning commission and city council in 1984 or to apply for and obtain a "green area variance" from our city council. If you elect to attempC to get the variance you must submit the required documents and fees before Octo- ber 9 of this year to get on the November planning commission and council calendar. I have attached the application form for your possible use. Your cooperation will be appreciated. Please call me if you have additional ques- tions. Douglas Sandstad Building Official/Zoning Administrat~ EnFlosures cc: City Manager, File '~,":~" ''"~" ~ 36 th AVENUE ' NO '' ~.,...,y; ", , ;:~. ,~').: .... , .... -. ..... [.. ~'.; ' ... ~', t, . -~ ' ' ~e~19 ..... ' ) ~'~ ... · .. · ,~ ~,, ~ ~ ~ ( O~I~I~L PROdECT APPROVED ~iTH 35.5 ~ GREEN' AREA ) ~: .~~;~ ~ ... .' .'z ,', ,,cz .,'/,,..',,' "..', ...... ,..,,..,,.'/zz?,,,,,,,,,z..,,,,,,,,,,,,,-.,,,,,,,.,....,,,. I~1 "' l; ' .'.~z/~' ' ~X~T N~/,,, .' /~,',',, , ' ,~'~, ///// ,ll./,'~R~n~m~'//~{. ~//i//, . '~-, " ' I. I ~.~ ~ '~., I' . ., z~ ~ ~11, ' _ '/11,, . ,,1~/, ,' ~ ~11 ~H~i ,.,, ,/I/j,'/ . .'!, '" /1~1 ' I '///." ".ll~///ll/J'//,/ ','~/{.: 't' ',' /2/ ~" · '//{]~1/ '1/~////.'," ."'///, , , ,./..'~/,' , t//-I ~- tl }~ '"' '~ ~'"7CC~7.'?'. 7 .... ' .... ,., ,,.,~,~r~', ..,¢ r,,,////,. ,', ~,,,,,,,//,..,,,, ..... ', . '", .///," ,'Z'.' ~,', .,i~.,,//////i/,/I ....,,.Lx/~,/I////~ ."-:. ...... ~:~ ~ .,. ~ l~.7,,v, , ,LEx ST N¢~'. · '~.' ','Zz6'l'x, '/"'I/BU~LD Na ',",., ',','//",,~,~I ~I '.. ,~ '.~ ! '. '/'. "II"' ,~ . ,,~ .,' .' ",/', ,~ .'?'.",'Z ~ ",.'7,",~,'.,'.'//~,'x,, /~ , ~ '," Z" 'II),,'., 'I, ~ ~ ~ ~....., ,, .. ~-~'~.~, . .~". . ,, ~ ..... I ...... '. , ,,~-, ~,-, ',/II~L~'~I~Z~'~L'~JZ 1'/,, ~1/1~ '~7//,'11.'~ ~ '~ · ':. . . · ,.~ .; . .. } Xx ,', " ' : "' . ., ',X,, ~' ::" 1.'///"/ .... '~.',.~',,',, .',:,u..../u/..~xz~,',~.. ,. ,,',,,x/,'.,,,,** ....'~ "~L. ' ' ,I ,~/,~. ' ,,,~.,,,,.'.,..", ',',//.',",A'..~,,.,,,~,. ,.",.,....,,. '.~.~. ,?,;z'.'.. .~ I/~7. X,/U/,'/,'//x,~?/".'z,. . '..','/,~'..'/.',?',./,,',,x,,.'z,v,v. ,,'f . '..', ~ · ', ' .' .:: ~ ~~~~'~.,',.z.',, z,., "':~Z~,~HJ/,"/ffH, JE,. ,,'..'~ ,.',~ ,' "'~' ~ ~ ~, t .'~, ~ ~ . . , I ~ "~' Q' i v,,,-,v.,,,, ,',.. -. .... ' · ,,. "..' ' , .... . . ,'.,/,,,,,,, .,.,. ~. ~z..,,:, '.' " "'" " '""' ' ' " "' ""' '"' .~1 , ti . "' '" ";' ,' .?' ....~ .. ~.' .';,~ .~., ,. I~,,~//?~.EXlSTi~6/.,. ,..,,,,,.,,,,, x .~/.~, - ., . '..,BULD~6. ' "' "CI ~ ~''''''''' "'~'' r~ k..V//L." /x,/,-,,/-,.".-,"/A., .... ,..v,.'," '"P,'., ',,, ..... ,'1 .,, .... ~ .:~ .~ '1~ %t .................. ~-. .... ~~ ~x~v":" ',z ~ ',xXj, -- Will~... ,. ~ /, .~ ,'..~7{~/~ .z'.. Z .~ Z ~ ~ , ~ ~ ,~'~ ~ ~ .',' ~ .'/z ,,,, i~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~'ux$? "' ~' ' '/,"/Z/47' ,. t', '/ ,','~ ~ '.,' , ' ,'. '.',, '7' "'.1 ' - ' - ~ . / /./- ' ' /.'~ · /DUILUII~, ' .' ~1 ' '"'"" "' """'"" '" .... ' ' ' ~ ~ . ~, ~ " ~'~' '*';" :"' NEI~ ASPIIALT (Sod removed) -32 ~/ 6REEN AREA ~3,,~ if, ', ~ l . .... ¢¢ ~ ~¢,.,,.,~¢ ~ (/.~, '//~. ~ ~¢.~,¢ City of New Hope Planning Case R~port Planning Case: 88-10 Request: Variance of 17 Parking Spaces to the Required 36 Parking Spaces for a Restaurant Location: 7181 42nd Avenue North Zoning: B-3 (Auto Oriented Business) Petitioner: Grobe's Cafe/Larry Sandberg Date: June 7, 1988 CASE UPDATE This case was before the Planning Commission of April 5, 1988 and May 3, 1988. The Commission encouraged the petitioners to research the possibility of creating additional parking from abutting property owners. Off-site parking requires a conditional use permit. The petitioner must submit a plan to staff for review as a part of a filing application for a conditional use permit, and the documentation required by the City Code such as a copy of the lease, proof that the businesses using the parking area will not conflict, etc. Section 4.036(11-12) is attached for the Commissioners' review. Staff has received nothing that indicates an interest on.filing for this conditional use permit to date. Staff has received no indication from the petitioner to date that demonstrates that he is attempting in good faith to correct the zoning violations at this property. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the request for a variance of 17 parking spaces to the required 36 parking spaces at 7181 42nd Avenue North because the petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets the variance criteria established in Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. Attachments: Section 4.026(11-12) New Hope Code of Ordinances Planning Commission Minutes (5/3/88) Planning Case Report (5/3/88) Planning Case Report (4/5/88) 4.036 (10) (z) - (11) (a) (i) (z) Shopping Centers. (i) 0 - 20,000 square feet of building area - ten spaces per one thousand square feet. (ii) 20,001 - 30,000 square feet of building area - eight spaces per one thousand square feet. (iii) 30,001 square feet and over of building area - six spaces per one thousand square feet. Ail areas are cumulative and refer to gross leasable building area and do not include covered or enclosed walkways, malls or lanes between stairs and similar public areas not intended or used for sales, display or other commercial purposes. (aa) Private Racketball~ Handball, and Tennis Courts. Not less than six spaces for each court. (bb) Manufacturing, Fabricating or Processing of a Product or Material. One space for each three hundred and fifty square feet of floor area, plus one space for each company owned truck (if not stored inside principal building). (cc) Warehousinq~ Storage or Handling of Bulk Goods. That space which is solely used as office shall comply with the office use'requirements and one space per each one thousand square feet of floor area, plus one space for each company owned truck (if not stored inside principal building). (dd) Other Uses. Other uses not specifically mentioned herein shall be determined on an individual basis by the City Council. Factors to be considered in such determination shall include (without limitation) size of building, type of . ~ use, nqmber of employees, expected volume and turnover of customer traffic and expected frequency and number of delivery or service vehicles. (11) Joint Facilities. (a) Off-Site Joint Use of Parking. The City Council may, after receiving a report and recommendation from the Planning Commission, approve a conditional use permit for one or more businesses to provide the required off-street parking facilities by joint use of one or more sites where the total number of spaces provided are less than the sum of the total required for each business should they provide them separately. When considering a request for such a permit, the Planning Commission shall not recommend that such permit be granted except when the following conditions are found to exist. (i) Entertainment Uses. Up to fifty percent of the parking facilities required for a theatre, bowling alley, dance hall, bar or restaurant may be supplied by the off- street parking facilities provided by types of uses specified as primarily daytime uses in subsection (iv) below. 4-38 072684 4.036 (11) (s) (ii) - (12) (c) (ii) Night Time or Sunday Uses. Up to fifty percent of the off-street parking facilities required for any use specified under (iv) below as ~imary daytime uses may be supplied by the parking facilities provided by the following night-time or Sunday uses; auditoriums incidental to a public or parochial school, churches, bowling alleys, dance halls, theatres, bars, restaurants or apartments. (iii) Schools~ Auditorium and Church Uses. Up to eighty percent of the parking facilities required by this section for a church or for an auditorium incidental to a public or parochial school may be supplied by the off-street parking facilities provided by uses specified under (iv) below as primarily daytime uses. (iv) Daytime Uses. For the purpose of this section the following uses are considered as primarily daytime uses: banks, business offices, retail stores, personal service shops, household equipment or furniture shops, clothing or shoe repair or service shops, manufacturing, wholesale and similar uses. (b) Additional Criteria for Joint Parkinq. In addition to the preceding requirements, the following conditions are required for joint parking usage: (i) Proximity. The building or use for which application is being made to utilize the off-street parking facilities provided by another building or use shall be located within three hundred feet of such parking facilities. (ii) Conflict in Hours. The applicant shall show that there is no substantial conflict in the principal operating hours of the two buildings or uses for which joint use of off-street parking facilities is proposed. (iii) Written Consent and Agreement. A legally binding ihstrument, executed by the parties concerned, for joint use of off-street parking facilities, duly approved as to title of grantors or lessors, and form and manner of execution by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the City Clerk and recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar ~of Titles, and a certified copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the City within 60 days after approval of the joint parking use by the City. (12) Off-Site Parkinq. (a) A Conditional Use. Any off-site parking which is used to meet the requirements of this Code shall be a conditional use as regulated by Section 4.20 of this Code and shall be subject to the conditions listed below. (b) Code Compliance. Off-site parking shall be developed and maintained in compliance with all requirements and standards of this Code. (c) Access. Reasonable access from off-street parking facilities to the use being serviced shall be provided. 4-39 072684 4.036 (12)(d)- (g), 4.037 (1) - (2)(d) (d) Lessee Agreement Required. The'"site used for meeting the off-site parking requirements o~ this Code shall be secured by a lease agreement between th~ parties, with term approved by the City Council subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney, filed with the City Clerk and recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Title, and a certified copy of the recorded document shall be filed with the City Clerk within 60 days after approval of the agreement by the City Council. (e) Proximity to Multiple Residence. Off-site parking for multiple family dwellings shall not be located more than one hundred feet from any normally used entrance of the principal use serviced. (f) Proximity for Non-Residential Uses. Off-site parking for non-residential uses shall not be located more than three hundred feet from the main entrance of the principal use being served. No more than one main entrance shall be recognized for each principal building. (g) Term of Parking Agreement. Any use which depends upon off- site parking to meet the requirements of this code shall maintain ownership and parking utilization of the off-site location until such time as on-site parking is provided or a site in closer proximity to the principal use is acquired and developed for parking. 4.037 Off-Street Loading. (1) Purpose. The regulation of loading spaces in these zoning regulations is to alleviate or prevent congestion of the public right-of-way and in off-street parking areas so to promote the safety and general welfare of the public, by establishing minimum requirements for off-street loading and unloading from motor vehicles in accordamce with the specific and appropriate utilization of various parcels of land or structures. (Code 072684, Ord. 85-23) (2) Location. (a) Off-Street. Ail required loading berths shall be off-street and located on the same lot as the building or use to be served. (b) Distance from Intersection. Ail loading berth curb cuts shall be located at minimum fifty feet from the intersection of two or more street right-of-ways. This distance shall be measured from the property line. (Code 072684) (c) Distance from Residential Use. No loading berth for a non- residential use shall be located closer than one hundred feet from a residential district unless within a structure. (Code 072684, Ord. 85-23) (d) Prohibited in Front Yards. Loading berths shall not occupy the front yard setbacks. (Code 072684) 4-40 072684 C~,,L,~ssioner Anderson requested that staff research the legality of allowing only one business in an R-O zone. Ms. Dunn indicated that she would do this before the case went to the City Council. Chairman Cameron confirmed that city staff was satisfied with the plans as presented. MOTION C~m~dssioner Oja made a motion ap~ the (k~di~ Use P~rm~t f~r a veterip~ry clinic in the R-O zc~e at 3709 Winnetka Ave~- Ncxth, a~ approvi~ cc~s~=~ction of the of six spruce tree c~ the south side of the property, ar~ the (kx~itional Use pemmit be/n~ ] ~m~ted to ~ business. C~L~Hssioner Gundershaug seco~L Voting in favor: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, C~a voting against: None Absent: Lutts, ~ PC 88-10 Chairman Cameron noted that his case had also been tsbled PdDQUEST FOR VARIANCE f¥om the April meeting. A full discussion had taken place OF 17 P~ SPACES on the petitioner's request at that time. AT 7181 42ND AVE. N. Mr. Sandberg said he had talked to the property owner behind his site. They are agreeable to install a parking lot that would hold 15-18 cars, that the restaurant would be able to use. It ~as his understand/rig that the Build/rig Official had given verbal approval for this action. Chairman Cameron stated t_hat the petitioner must present the city with legal documents which would allow them to share parking space on ~one else's property. Ms. Dunn stated that such an action would require that this petitioner file for a Conditional Use Permit for sharing parking off-site. Cu~m~,~ssioner Anderson questioned whether this could be considered as part of Case 88-10 to eliminate extra expense for the petitioner? The City Manager stated that it was possible that the basic fee could be %raived, but any expenses incurred by the city in regarding to publication of the notice, and notifying residents of this change would have to be absorbed by the petitioner. The city would not pay these costs. Planning. Commissio~ Minutes May 3, 1988 Chairman Cameron stated t~at there would also have to be legal steps taken between 'the two property owners and the city. Mr. Sandberg said that the owner had also indicated he might just purchase some extra property, but this ba~ not been established as yet. The idea was that they could then put the parking lot on that property. The cost of constructing such a parking lot was the major problem at this time. Chairman Cameron asked how long this process would take? Mr. Sandberg said he hoped to have construction cost estimates within a week. The Chairman noted that this could be a solution to the problem. Cui~m,~ssioner Anderson stated that in general such a proposal seemed to be something the C~L,,~,~ssion could support. However, there would have to be a legal contract between the parties and the city. ~/ITON C~m~ssioner Anderson made a motion to ~able Case 88-10 until the ~ of June 7, 1988. Cu~L,L,~ssioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron, Gundershaug, Oja Voting against: None Absent: Lutts, Edwards PC 88-11 Mr. Jim Larson stated he was requesting the variance to allow RtI~TEST FOR 2 FOOT him to construct an addition to his single car garage. He VARIANCE IN SIDEYARD said t~hey were a three car family. SETBACK AT 5908 BOONE AVENUE N. Ms. Dunn distributed a letter to the co~m~-,~ssioners (attached to official minutes) that had been received from Mr. Delbert Dieter, 5904 Boone Avenue North. This letter withdrew the verbal objections Mr. Dieter had earlier made earlier. MOTION Motion by Co~.~ssioner Friedrich at accept this letter as part oft_he official record. Commissioner Oja secor~. Voting in favor: Anderson, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron,' Gundershaug, Oja Voting against: None Absent: Lutts, Edvrdrds Planning Commissi6nMinutes May 3, 19S8 City of New Hope Planning Case Report Planning Case: 88-10 Request: Variance of 17 Parking Spaces to the Required 36 Parking Spaces for a Restaurant Location: 7181 42nd Avenue ~orth Zoning: B-3 (Auto Oriented Business) Petitioner: Grobe's Cafe/Larry Sandberg Date: May 3, 1988 CASE UPDATE This case was before the Planning Commission of April 5, 1988. The Commission encouraged the petitioners to research the possibility of creating additional parking from abutting property owners. Mr. Scott Cooper, manager of the Nevada Avenue Apartments located south of Grobe's Cafe, has discussed with staff the potential of creating new 'parking on the apartment complex lot and leasing this to Grobe's Cafe. Off-site parking could require a conditional use permit. Staff has received nothing from the petitioner to pursue this option to date. The Planning Commission may consider tabling this case unit June 7, 1988. If the Commission desires to take action, staff maintains its recommendation listed in the April 5, 1988 Planning Case report. Attachments: Planning Commission Minutes (4/5/88) Planning Case Report (4/5/88) city of New Hope Planning Case RePort Planning Case: 88-10 Request: Variance of 17 Parking Spaces to the Required 36 Parking Spaces for a Restaurant Location: 7181 42nd Avenue North Zoning: B-3 (Auto Oriented Business) Petitioner: Grobe's Cafe/Larry Sandberg Date: April 5, 1988 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a variance of 17 parking spaces to the required 36 parking spaces at 7181 42nd Avenue North. The petitioner has expanded his business to include a 384 square foot dining area. This was done without a building permit. Staff estimates that the site can accommodate 19 parking spaces. 2. The criteria for calculating parking spaces is found in Section 4.036(10) (r), New Hope Code of Ordinances. The standard is for one space for each forty square feet of gross floor area of dining...and one space for each eighty square feet of kitchen. 3. The property has been subject to a number of planning cases. Please refer to the Planner's report. In addition to those cases listed by the Planner, the following action has taken place: -Planninq Case 83-17 - Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Video rental facility in a B-3 zoning district with limited hours (11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and on Sunday from 12:00 noon to 5:00 p.m.). -Planninq Case 84-25 - Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to amend hours of operation for Grobe's Cafe to: 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday - Friday 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Saturday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Sunday Attached are minutes for the Commission's information and review. Planning Case Report 88-10 April 5, 1988 Page -2- 4. Approximately a year-and-a-half ago, the petitioner informed the City that he was interested in expanding his business. Staff researched this and advised him that he did not have adequate parking on site and gave him a few possible options for obtaining additional parking. These options would have required conditional use permits, and no filing was made. 5. On December 18, 1987 a grease fire occurred at Grobe's Cafe. Members of the Fire Department noticed the new dining area and reported it to the Building Official. The Building Official notified the property owner of the zoning violations in his January 6, 1988 letter (see attached). 6. Property owners within 350' have been notified. Staff has received no comment to date. ANALYSIS 1. The parking calculation is as follows: Square Footage Required Spaces Restaurant Dining 1019/40 25.47 Kitchen 591/80 7.38 Barber 432/180 2.88 35.73 or 36 spaces 2. The site sketch submitted by Grobe's Cafe shows 17 parking spaces. The design of the parking lot is such that it would be difficult to utilize 3 of the spaces. Staff has prepared a site sketch listed as Exhibit A in the packet. Please note that the pylon sign in parking space 6 would need to be removed in order to utilize that space. 3. The 42nd Avenue street improvement project will require a permanent easement. The impact of the street improvement is minimal. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the request for a variance of 17 parking spaces to the required 36 parking spaces at 7181 42nd Avenue North because the petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets the variance criteria established in Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. Planning Case 88-10 April 5, 1988 Page -3- Attachments: Planner's Letter (30 March 1988) Staff Sketch (Exhibit A) Site Plan (28 March 1988) Building official's Letter (6 January 1988) Minutes-Planning Case 80-58 Minutes-Planning Case 82-5 Minutes-Planning Case 83-17 Minutes-Planning Case 84-25 northwest associated consultants, inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Dan Donahue FROM: Alan Brixius/Sharon Schultz DATE: 30 March 1988 RE: Grobe Cafe Parking Variance FILE NO: 131.01 - 88.10 BACKGROUND The Grobe Cafe expanded their dining area by approximately 384 square feet. The expansion occurred without proper building permits and on a site that is non- conforming with regard to building setbacks and off-street parking. After being cited for code violations, the property owner is now requesting a variance from the City's off-street parking requirements. The variance proposes a reduction of~ parking stalls from the required 36 parking stalls for the restaurant and barber shop. The applicant has proposed a parking arrangement as shown in Exhibit A. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS NONCONFORMING SITE The cafe site prior to the dining room expansion, existed as a legal non-conforming use as defined in Section 4.03 (2) of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance. Under this section of the Ordinance, legal non-conforming uses shall not be enlarged, but may be continued at a size and manner of operation existing upon the date that it became non-conforming. The site in question is non-conforming in the following respects: 1. Side yard setback: Required 10 feet - existing 1.1 feet on east side 2. Rear yard setback:. Required 35 feet - existing 30 feet encroachment onto the property to the south. The southern building addition was also constructed initially without a permit. 4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 41 O, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612) 925-9420 Dan Donahue 30 March 1988 Page ,Two 3. Off street parking: The site is required to_provide~2~.p,arkjng stalls and the proposed site shows 17 parking stalls. ~a~_,' ~d~ 0 ~Ol~iF~?~5(,~T~r~)'.~L,,,/~,'~ With the expansion of the cafe dining room, the applicant ilTegally expanSed this nonconforming use by increasing the parking demand on a site already deficient in parking. SITE HISTORY The parking shortage on the Grobe Cafe site is well documented in past development requests for the site. In December 1980, Case 80-50, the property owner of the cafe and Frosty Bay Ice Cream petitioned the City for a conditional use permit for a walk up ice cream service facility. During several months of consideration, the City approved the conditional use permit and a temporary occupancy permit conditioned upon the applicant resolving the site's parking concerns. Several options were highlighted: 1. Share of parking between the DEQ store (now Tom Thumb) and the cafe. 2. Employee parking in the bowling alley site. 3. Shared parking between the cafe and Vickers. 4. The cafe operating hours would be restricted to 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. In November of t981, the City Council reviewed the Frosty Boy CUP and occupancy permit. In this review, it was discovered that a shared parking agreement with Tom Thumb was not possible and the site's parking shortage had not been resolved. The City denied the extension of the CUP. ~ .- In December 1982, Case 82-5, the cafe owner petitioned that the City reconsider its action on the Frosty Boy CUP. The City again reviewed the parking concern and approved the permit extension contingent upon limited cafe hours and the resolution of' traffic and parking problems if they occur. With ~this approval, no site changes were required. The ice cream facility did not reopen. Since Case 82-5, the property owner has requested use changes including a video store, expanded cafe hours and most recently the barbershop. In 1987, the owners of the Grobe's Cafe inquired with .the City Building Official as to the possibilities of expanding the cafe. The Building Official informed the property owners that some resolution of the on-site parking shortage mu'st be addressed before any cafe expansion would be approved. To provide some options for the provision of additional parking for this site, the City asked NAC to prepare some site plans that may be considered .to relieve this parking shortage. Conceptual plans were prepared as outlined in the attached February 10, 1987 planner's report. Due to the cost involved, the property owner chose not to implement this parking option, rather decided to illegally expand the restaurant without required permits. D~n Donahue 30 March 1988 P~ge Three PARKING LOT DESIGN Exhibit A represents the proposed parking layout prepared by the applicant in conjunction with the variance request. Review of this layout notes the following code deficiencies: 1. The proposed cafe and barber shop use are required by code to provide 36 parking stalls, the site shows only 17 parking stalls. 2. The ~arkihg 'l°t ~shoUTd ~b~'s'-etback ai~ least thre~'"~t'~ffom a P~ope~y P-arking stalls abut up to the lot lines on the north and west. 3. Curb b~rriers'aroundlthe entire parking area are required to be located five feet _from all lot lines. 4. The site plan shows three parallel parking stalls along the west lot line. These' stalls are difficult to access and egress and will interfere'with park_ing stall number 1. The parking stalls will also conflict with on-site deliveries and garbage collection. 5. The front yard setbJ'ck is 80 feet. The applicant shows the entire front yard as pavement. The same number of useable parking stalls can be accommodated in a parking lot 62 feet wide. The balance of the site should be landscaped to enhance the site. General review of the site plan indicates that it does little to improve the non- confor.mity of the site or provide sufficient parking stalls. CONCLUSION The applicant's variance request now attempts to administratively rectify site non-conformities and illegal ordinance violations that will increase the existing non-conforming conditions of the site by further intensifying the restaurant use. In this regard, the applicant's request for variance is contrary to the non- conforming use provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the variance. The staff is also concerned with the precedent that would be established in the approval of a variance to accommodate the applicant without efforts to upgrade the existing non-conforming conditions. In all past considerations of this site, the City has attempted to respond to the site's parking situation. It is again recommended that the parking situation be addressed prior to allowing any expansion of use. The following options were suggested with previous planning requests: 1. Shared parking with Tom Thumb. This option was first suggested in 1980. When Tom Thumb purchased the DEQ Superette, they opposed the shared parking concept. It is important to note that Tom Thumb has only the 17 parking stalls to meet its individual required parking. · Dan Donahue 30 March 1988 Page Four 2. Shared parking with Vickers. This option was discussed in 1982. At that time, Vickers refused to allow shared parking because they had their own plans for expansion. To date, Vickers has not expanded, so this may present a currently viable option. 3. Purchase of land located south of the cafe from the multiple family development and the development lot as shown in Exhibit D. The idea to locate a parking lot south of the cafe was first suggested in 1980 by the property owner. The concept plan was developed in 1987 and discussed with the property owner when they initially suggested the cafe expansion. This concept was recently revised to reflect the 42nd Avenue Improvement Plan. The parking options present both benefits and detriments to the area. BENE FI TS The area in front of the building off of 42nd Avenue North can accommodate t6 - 9 foot wide parking spaces. The handicap space would have to be located on the end as shown to provide the additional area for door swings/movement required by the handicapped. To provide the additional spaces required, it is suggested that another parking lot be provided east of the site near Maryland Avenue and a drive to this lot is provided along the side and rear of the cafe for access. This drive would 'also serve as access for a loading zone for both the cafe and Tom Thumb (see Exhibit D). This concept was recom- mended on a sketch prepared by our office in the February 1987 42nd Avenue Development Analysis (see Exhibit C). As mentioned in this February 1987 report, the vacant land south of Tom Thumb has been offered by the owners of the adjacent apartments for such a use~ This concept also recommends a redesign of the Tom Thumb parking arrangement in order to gain uniformity and better circulation between the two sites. Tom Thumb currently has all their parking along the side of their'bOilding. The access drive from Maryland Avenue to Tom Thumb and the additional parking lot for Grobe'~ Cafe could be combined to reduce the number of curb cuts required to Maryland. In summary, it appears that the additional required parking could be provided in a reasonable arrangement with the offer and cooperation of the adjacent property owners. The concept is beneficial in the respect that it: 1. Provides all the required parking. 2. Improves traffic through the site for both automobiles and delivery truck traffic. 3. Provides a loading area exclusive of any required parking. ' D~n Donahue 30 March 1988 Page Five DETRIMENTS While it has been mentioned that the property owner to the south is willing to sell the vacant parcel of land to Grobe's Cafe, this sale will impact the multiple family development. The multiple family development is zoned R-3, requiring 4,000 square feet per unit. Currently. this development is nonconforming in that it offers only 1,788 square feet of lot area per unit. The parking lot concept would require the sale of approximately 7,000 square feet of land. This sale would increase the nonconformity of the multiple family site by reducing the lot area per unit 1,594~ squ?e., ~ee.~ pe.~. ~ni?~. ~ ...... While the multiple family site nonconformity would be increased, it is important to note that after the land sale, the multiple family site would still have 36% green space, well in excess of City requirements. The proposed parking lot area is currently just sodded green space with limited use. Another option available to the City would be to deny the variance and deny the use of the new dining room area. Review of the New Hope Zoning Ordinance and past City actions indicate a variance to accommodate the expanded restaurant based on the submitted site plan is not appropriate. The City must weigh the options available and make its determination as to the degree of code enforcement it will require. cc: Steve Sandrall ' ~----' Certificate - ....... of ,_ ~./~,/..,, ./:/, . ;._/,,',o. ~urvev · ~.?., .-.,.-~....,......:~.., :*** =,***,~,~,~ - ] , ; '. · -v--* · _......an ' I ~ I: ~,/ ~ .'.~' ~-- - " ~ ' ~' I ~.~'~' · ~ -~ ' ' .~-I~ ~'~ '~ .. ' ~-~"%- . ..~."~" ,~,~" I ~ ' ~ ~ · % I. I ~?: ~ ." ~ ' ~ ~ ... ' , :'" ~' I ,~"/~, I '.::.:.::~'~:.--~,' ~' -. I~ ..: ,' .... :.' ' ~ I ./.~'t I "' Iii Z%~ . ., 1.~, ' '" "'" I~ ~' "" ":*'- .... ~ ~ ¢' ,..~,'.,;'.' .. .:v :l~;,' ~ I ~ :' ~, , ' ,'"~-,,~. I :' i l~J, ~ ~ · , ....................................... ~ ~ .- . . .. ; , ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~?; ~::'.~7~~~..ll2' t ~ ~n ~n exoo~ ~, R~K~O~ ~A~, Co~ ;~- ~/ G~.~ ~p~aenta~on of a .u~ey of ~he boundar~el of the ~' ~ ' ~.~ ~. above described l~d~ ~ of the locatio~ of ~11 ' ~u~l~nga the~om~ am~ all v~l~le encroachmente~ -. - . ..... ~ I ' ~SOCIAT~ INC. I ....... ~ I northwest associated consultants, inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Jeanine Dunn/Dan Donahue FROM: Curtis Gutoske DATE: 10 February 1987 RE: 42nd Avenue Development Analysis and Concepts ~FILE NO: 131.10 The following is a summary of the analysis and concepts that have been completed regarding the proposed42~d Avenue development. The area included in the analysis extends from the New Hope Bowl west to All Star Sports and from 42nd Avenue south to 41st Avenue. Two different concepts have been developed based on the findings of the analysis. It should be noted that these concepts are preliminary and are presented as possible solutions to the issues raised by the proposed expansions and redevelopments. ANALYSIS Exhibit A illustrates the major issues facing the development of the sites located south of 42nd Avenue. These issues were identified earlier-in the 42nd Avenue Improvement Study and remain as concerns in the present analysis. Highlighting these concerns are as'follows: · The proposed realignment of the 42nd Avenue/Nevada Avenue intersection · Introducing the streetscaping along the south side of 42nd Avenue as. called for in the 42nd Avenue Improvement Study (see Exhibit B). This includes the provision of a pedestrian walkway and a bicycle treadway along with boulevard plantings and benches. · Buffer areas are needed between the.commercial and residential uses. These buffers should screen any commercial parking and loading areas from the residential uses. This screening should be accomplished by using a combina- tion of deciduous and coniferous plantings due to sight lines originating from the apartment buildings, as well as from ground level. Fences should be avoided since space is at a premium in these areas and they will only contribute to making them appear smaller and more confined. EXHIBIT C - 1987 AREA CONCEPT PLAN PLANNER'S REPORT 4820 minnetonka blvd., ste. 200, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612)925-9420 '. ~0 February 1987 Page Two · The vacation of Maryland Avenue. With Nevada Avenue proposed to be the primary access to 42nd Avenue, vacating Maryland Avenue is seen as imparative to pro- mote its use. This will also allow for additional open space to be cre~ted between the apartments and the New Hope Bowl site. · Reduce the number of curb cuts along 42nd Avenue. Reducing the number of access points to 42nd Avenue will allow for a smoother traffic flow along 42nd Avenue and also help reduce the number of traffic accidents which occur in this area each year. · Improve internal circulation within the Grobe's Cafe block as well as provide for the proper expansion of Grobe's Cafe. These issues were taken into consideration when developing the following two concepts. The concepts attempt to deal with and solve these concerns as they apply to the proposed expansions and redevelopment of the area. CONCEPT A Concept A is illustrated in Exhibit C. It includes a 3,000 square foot expansion of All Star Sports onto the vacant site to the east, a 1,000 square foot expansion of Grobe's Cafe into the vacant Video Store, and a proposed two story, 32,000 square foot office/professional building on the New Hope Bowl/Broadway Pizza site. These expansions.and proposed developments were designed with regards to the issues i'dentified in the analysis. The following describes how these issues were handled with respect to each site. All Star Sports This concept illustrates a 3,000 square foot expansion to be added to the east side of the present building. Thirty-seven parking spaces have been provided and the existing curb cut to 42nd Avenue has been eliminated. Access to the site may be from Nevada Avenue or Oregon Avenue at existing driveway locations. The loading area is located at the rear of the building and uses a shared drive with the apartments to the south. By placing the loading area in the rear allows for a parking arrangement which provides for the proper right-of-way width to incorporate the streetscaping along 42nd Avenue. However, this placement of the loading area will require visual screening to be placed on the apartment property as there is insufficient width to provide for a buffer area on the All Star Sports property. This is not viewed as a crucial problem with the limited use of loading area and will actually enhance the apartment property with the addition of the landscaping. ~0 February 1987 Page Three Grobe's Cafe/Tom Thumb/Vickers With the proposed expansion of Grobe's Cafe, additional parking will be required. The vacant area south of Tom Thumb has been offered from the apartment owners to be available for such a use. The concept plan uses this property to provide for an additional 22 space parking lot. The existing parking arrangement has also been redesigned to more efficiently utilize the site while allowing for the streetscaping to be implemented'for the full width of the block. A curb cut along 42nd Avenue has been eliminated and the Vickers curb cut has been shifted to the east so it can become a shared access for the convenience store and the cafe. It should be noted that while this concept is still 16 spaces short of the required 55 spaces, it represents the maximum number of spaces physically possible on the site without compromising these concerns. The two parking areas have been connected by a private drive which.runs behind the cafe. Due to the limited space in this area, the apartments' driveway north of the garages will have to be reduced to 24 feet to - allow for a. buffering strip to exist between the two driveways. This buffer strip will have to be very intensly planted due to its narrowness and it being the sole screen between the cafe and the apartments. Maryland Avenue has been vacated and has become a private drive to be used by the cafe and the Tom Thumb store. This allows both establishments access from either westbound or eastbound traffic traveling on 42nd Avenue. It also allows the apartment complex additional open space and buffer zone to the New Hope Bowl site to the east. t(7~ ti CITY OF NEW HOPE Staff Sketch , i _i Restaurant Dining f t~ ' ~.o~ / ~o--~.,~ A~ ?,~ '.~ t? 591 / 80= 7.38 ~ : Barber 432 / 150= 2.88 MARYLAND AVENUE ,,,,/ EXHIBIT D - NEVADA AVENUE 1988 CONCEPT PLAN REVISED E PLAN north J GROBE'S CAFE EXPANSION scale 1"=50' Prepared by: N.A.C., Inc. March 28, 1988 January 6, 1988 Mrs. Grobe 7181 42nd Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 Dear Mrs. Grobe I have reviewed the City's official files on the 7179-7181 42nd Avenue property and various changes to it that have occurred over the years. Several c~es have been made to a conditional use permit that restricts both your restaurant operation and the 7179 leasable space that is currently used as a barber shop. As you know, the hours of your restaurant business, for ~le, were limited because of the parking shortage on your property. It ~s brought to my attention that you have recently expanded your restaurant and added a dining room that seats approximately 35 customers~in addition to the 35 existing seats you have:without prior City approvals and permits. This has intensified the use of the property beyond the scope of ~arlier City Council action with the very limited parking available on the pro.petty. I must require you, therefore, to submit the attached application to our planning co~ssion within the next two weeks in order to obtain a parking variance which would permit you to continue to operate a 70 seat restaurant, if Council approves. Please note that the property owner must sign in addition to the business operator if those are different parties and a $400.00 (total) filing fee is required in addition to a pair of plans that sho~.~ both the floor plan of the building in and a site plan that sho%~s the parF~ng situation and the two businesses on the lot. Both dra~ings must be to scale. Family Styled City ~ For Family Living ~r~. Gx~be Page 2 japery 6, 1988 Pleas~ ~]7 me if you have additional questions. Thank you in advance for y~ur c~operation. E~ Sardstad Building Official/Zoning Administr~-~or ~/mlr Enclosures cc: Dan Donahue Jeannine Dunn PLANNING CASE 80-58 - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 7181 42nd A%q~NUE NORTH - BH PROPERTIES, ROBERT WENDT ~2~D HARVEY LIGHT, PETITIONERS ~. Wendt and Mr. Light were both present. They stated they wished the Conditional Use Permit to allow them to open a soft ice cream franchise operation at 7181 42nd Avenue North, next to George's Cafe. Mr. wendt said there would be no inside seat.ing as it w~uld be a walk-up type of business. He felt it would benefit the community as it would be for the ycunger peqple as well as the older people. Mr. Light stated they would share the parking facilities with George's Cafe and the DEQ Superette next door. The soft top would be located next to the DEQ. H~ felt the traffic ~)uld be minimal due to the hours of operation. The Cafe usually closes between 2:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. and the ice cream pri~,e business would be between 5:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. He thought they would probably open up about 10:00 a.m. It is similar to a Baskin Robbins type of operation only they do have a drive-up facility. Customers do not actually stay there but pick up sundaes, bulk ice cream, etc. They plan to have some seating facilities outside by installing two or three cement tables in case anyone wants to eat on the premises. Mr. Wendt noted t_hat George felt it might complement t/-.e Cafe business. Mr. Light stated in answer to a question from the Chairman that he had consulted City Ordinances in regard to the Conditional Use Permit and had discussed this with Doug Sandstad and the City Manager. Mr. Wendt stated that he did not think there would be more than 10-12 cars per hour at ~eak times and that the traffic would be L~ and out. In response to q~/estions from Ccmmissioner Gustafson, Mr. Wendt said their hours ~uld be roughly · from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or 10:30. They did not want to be open any later. He felt that some time after 6:00 p.m. would be their prL?,e business time. At the present time the cafe is open frcm 6:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. Mr. ;.;endt felt that r~he balanc~ of tile business %;cold be of a walk-up ty~e. Discussion regarding the traffic and parking situation. ~. Wend~ stated they %~uld share the parking spaces wi~ George'-s Cafe and the DEQ Superette. o In regard to prcbable changes to the site, Mr. Light stated they might extend ~e marquee to sL~ feet or might k_nock out the existing wall and put in some different windows and go back Lnto the building six feet to provide adequate room for the outside seating. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that the only products would be ice cream type products. He then asked what the petitioner's options would be if, after a year of operation, there developed a traffic problem on the site? Mr. Light stated they feel there will be adequate parking, otherwise they would not be interested in investing their money. However, they had also investigated the area behind the cafe, which belongs to the apartment building. The apartment owner had indicated they would sell approximately 40 feet, that stretches out to the road behind the DEQ, if they wish to buy it. This would provide overflow parking. The City Manager noted that the petitioner should ~ aware that the apartment complex might not have· enough land to sell and still be in accord with the.city greenspace requirements. He noted that accord- ing to Ordinance, each houging unit had to have 4000.square feet of lot provided. In answer to a question from Commission Gustafson, Mr. Wendt stated that the property was owned by George Svolopulos, of the Cafe. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed that George was in agreement with the plans for parking as stated by the petitioner. Fir. Svolopulos was present and stated he was in agreement with the propose~ plans. The Chairman cemented that he felt that any approval of the ~onditional Use Permit'should include an annual review by staff in regard to hours of operation ~nd any traffic/parking problems. He felt it would not take too many additional cars per day to create a potentially hazardous situation. 3. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for 7181 42nd Avenue North, as re~uested in Case ~0-58, subject to annual review by staff in retard to ~otential traf- fic or congestion hazards ~hat mi~ht exist on the site, and that the pett~icners, by the time of the ~ity Council meetin.j, determine what potential land is availabl~ at the rear of the site for over-flow parking in terms of Ordlnance re¢~uirements and have some kind of basic oucline of a motential plan if, in fact, Cit~ suaff determines next veer that there is a congestion or traffic z~rcb!em on the site. Con-missioner Gundershaug secon~. In answer to a questien from Commissioner Edwards regarding potential signs, Commissioner Gustafson stated that the petitioner ha~l al~eady indicated he was aware of the City's Sign Ordinance and its res- trictions. Voting in favor: Wheelock, Daly, Bartos, Ce,heron, Gustafson, G~dershaug, Edwards Voting against: Ncne ~ ~ ~ Absent: Gulenckyn ~__=,~ '"_ .~ Motion passed. , j% The Chairman confirmed ~hat the Commisuion was not auDroving any signs and that the ~etitioner was aware that he must cheek with the City staff 'before installing any signs. ~.. ~~.~ase Nou__80_q2~j_.~conditiona] use permi_~t 7181 42nd Avenue North, BH_ -' 'k ~-~O~r~r-r-~gWJ&~P__QP_C~D_.9_.~ ice~ cream-~fr~ise. %~%s the q~-t 5~ ~N The petitioners did not appear. ~J~.by Councilman Enck, second by Councilwoma~ Hokr to table Plannin C._~q__q~.~9- ~_~%.0~.8 u~Dtil..__later in the meetinq~ Voting in favor: Erickson, Enck, Hokr, Ot,ten, P]'ufka Voting against: None ..... ~ ~ by Councilman Enck, second by Mayor Erickson, that items, 2t~~ a_nd 4.~re]atinq, ~_n~ses 80-53~80-57 and 80-58 be tabled until the meetin~ of December 22. I9~0o ~.~..~~~..~kd.i~_~_~h...a.t the ipetitJoners De advlsed__th_~a,.t~__i_f__t_he~ d.o~ot aD. pear at_thak mee~inq, the requests will automatically be denied.~ Voting in favor: Erickson~_~nck,.'c. Hok~--Otten.r_Rlufka Voting against: None ~" ~,~--"~"' ~° ~' ~O ~. M~tion decl~%r~d 'carried. 3. Plannin~ Case No. 80-58~ request from BH PrQpcrties. for a condltiona] use ~ ~__a]low deve]o_.~ ~ - l.p_.j_ce_c:]ae;~m qoqt fop f~-~neh~f~ ,~J- 7la1 42nd Avenll~L Mr. Harvey Light and Mr. George Svotopo~.os appeared on behalf of the petioner. Mr. Light said they want the conditional use permit so as to be able to operate an ice cream shop in part of George's Cafe building. The Planning Commission recommendations were reviewed. The city manager inquired as to whether Mr. Light had come up with an alternative for parking. .. Mr. Light replied that they were working on it. He said he did not understand the conditional use permit to be granted on the basis that they had to have ~n alternate parking proposal. Mr. Light continued that in case a problem would come up, they would want additional parking. Mr. Light said there did appear to be a lot of land available on the apartment site, behind the cafe. The city manager noted that the apartment site %:as overbuilt by about 10 units. Discussion followed with Mr. Light pointing out khat Mr. Svolopoulos's building came right up to the property line. If some of the apartment land could be utilized by the cafe, then there would ~t least be room to get to the back of the building with deliveries. The city manager said that th~ point'the P'lanning Co~nission had made was that, if the apartment site was up to d~nsity, then another way should be found to handle the parking. Is there any o~her solution than trying to use the apartment property? Mr. Light siad that perhaps something could be worked out with the superette. He said he thought they had more than ample parking, parking that was never used. It was again pointed out to Mr. Light that the Planning Commission had asked the petitSoner to work out the alternates for parking. Councilman Enck noted that there was not sufficient parking at the cafe site, that the adjoining apartment site is overbuilt as is and this Council would not look favorably on taking land from the apartment site and that the petitioner must come to Council to tell. them where the cars will be parked. Mr. Light said that he had understood that the conditional use was granted with the existing parking. In consideration of the fact that there could be a problem with parking in the future, he had agreed to look at availability of additional parking. The city manager clarified that the Planning Conunission recommendation was to grant the conditional use permit provided the petitio~er could find a way to do something about the parking if it becomes a problem in the future. Councilman Enck said that he understood this to mean that Planning Commission had recommended in favor of granting the conditional use permit provided the petitioner can solve the future parking pr6blem. He said he did anticipate that there would be a future ~arking problem. This problem should be addressed prior to going into business. --_J~--~,~ -~ ' ~i~ ~- --: 3. Mr. Light said that he had understood there to be sufficient parking for the cafe and the proposed ice cream shop . He noted that the east side of the building had been occupied before. These businesses also brought additional traffic. Mr. Light repeated that he bnder~tood that the conditional use was granted without the word "providing" .' ..... , ~ Councilman Enck said that with the c~rrent standards he does not feel that there .would be sufficient parking on the site for any going business. He said he could ~ foresee a lot of problems. The driveway is shared with DEQ, cars must be able to turn on the site. People are not usually willing to walk a long distance to get an ice cream cone, etc. Councilman Enck said he would l~ke to see the petitioner go back and address what could be dOne about alternative Parking, Council then would hold up a decision until the petitioner can come back and tell them what he could do with the cars. Mr. Light again asserted that this had not been his understanding. He thought the business had been approved. This was news to him. It was pointed out to Mr. Light that previous action was by the Planning Commission, which only recommends to the C6uncil. The Chairman of the Planning Commission had told the petitioner that he must appear before the Council t~e following. Monday. The Council must mare the d~cision, not the Planning Commission. Mr. ~,olopoulos indicated that he had also misunderstood the Planning Commission action. Mr. Light ~id he had brought plans into the building department. He had been told the plans were insufficient and that he had hired an architect which would cost him money. Further discussion followed as to whether the petitioner should pursue additional parking or whether Council should take action on the request at this time - either approve or deny. Mr. Light said that they would be putting from $50 to $60,000 into the business. He asked what period of time the conditional use permit would cover. The city manager advised that the Planning Commission had recommended annual review because of the parking problems. It was pointed out to the petitioner that with that kind of an investment future parking problems should be resolved prior to going ihto business. Mr. George Svolopoulos asked whether there had been parking problems when the restaurant and the barber shop occupied the space now proposed for the ice cream shop. The city manager said that it had been a problem. There had been a parking spill over to the liquor store lot across the street even. Mr. Svolopoulos asked whether he could extend his restaurant. The city manager replied that there would be a ~roblem from the staff enforcement standpoint if Mr. Svolopoulos were to come in with remodeling plans for his restaurant because he does not have enough parking under the current ordinance. He would be told to co~e ~n and apply for a variance for parking. Upon inquiry as to whetheY the problem had been caused by change in the ordinance, the city manager stated that, for all practical purposes, the building was built before the city really had an ordinance. That is why the building is back on th~ lot line. The little addition that encroached on the abutting property had been buil~ without a permit. He notified that the Council and the Planning Commission had, over the years, worked hard to make this a situation as workable as possible, for this b6ilding and Other buildings in similar circumstances. Mr. L~ght commented that he was concerned with putting that much money into the operation if the permit were to be on a yearly basis. The fact th&t 42nd was a heavily traveled street which would not lend itself to people crossing if cars were parked north of 42nd was noted. It was also mentioned by Councilman Enck that there were times when the bowling alley and Broadway Pizza did not have adequate parking available. There is relatively little parking space available to George's Cafe. ~ _. ? Mr. Light said that the hours of operation of the different businesses should also be taken into consideration. The heaviest business for the ice cream shop would most likely be on Sunday, when the liquor store was closed. Further discussion followed as to the need to look for additional parking, Mr. Svolopoulos stated that Dr. Herman was willing to sell some property to him at anytime, if the city will permit him to do so. Mr. S~lopoulos then asked how he could find out whether the city would permit this. The city manager said that first a preliminary plat would be required showing the proposed division. The preliminary plat would need to be approved. Also, a variance would be needed to reduce the lot size for the .apartments. .~ ~% ~- The possibility of obtaining an easement across the apartment site was mentioned. It was clarified that the burden was to be ~pon the petitioner to research additional parking possibilities and come back and show the city how ~he additional parking needs will be met. The conditional use permit could not be granted until the parking problem is resolved. The conditional use permit must be approved by the Council, the Planning Commission being only an advisory body. ~ouncilman Often t tab%~?_~L~ - ' ' Second by Counci3A~oman Hokr. Voting in favor: Enck, Hokr, Otten Votin9 against.: None Absent: Erickson, Plufka The Manager said that the petitioner for the ice cream store had misunderstood the need for an alternate loarking plan. Co~cil was concerne~ and tabled the case until this problem could be solved and the pe- 1. P!anninc Case No. 80-58. recuest f~Q~ ~ Properties for a ~onditiona1 use permit to allow develoDmpnt of a walk-up iq9 crpam soft-tqp franchise at 7181 42nd Avenue (continued from last meeting) was considered by Council. Mr. Eouglas Turbak, Attorney, appeared on behalf of BH Properties. He said they had spoken to Dan Quast, owner of DEQ Superette, and 'that Mr. Quast will permit them to use the entire parking lot for any parking needs they might have. He then presented a drawing showing a proposed parking layout. Upon inquiry as to whether it was proposed to chahge the parking fo= the existing facility, Mr. Turbak said that there was even more parking available than Shown on the drawing. Discussion followed as to whether the proposed parking arrangement would lend itself to an adequate traffic flow. It was suggested that the parking layout be reviewed by Design and Review. Upon inquiry as to whether the ice cream store would seat customers, Mr. Turbak replied that it would not; there would be a walk-up window and possibly a table outside. Mayor Erickson noted that the parking needs were not long term and people would not be inclined to use the overflow area and walk to the window for ice cream. Question was asked as to code requirements for parking for the cafe and ice cream store. The city manager replied that the restaurant would need forty spaces less a deduct for kitchen space. He did not know what was required for the store. Councilmember Plufka indicated that further information was needed as to the amount of required parking for the restaurant and the ice cream store. The city manager reviewed the Council action at the last meeting and stated that this is why the petitioner is back before Council. Mr. Larson also said that staff had not seen the parking layout prior to this meeting. The Mayor suggested that the plan should ~han be referred to the Design and Review committtee and to staff for review. Mr. Turbak stated that there was only so much land available, and they had gotten permission from Mr. Quast to use the superette site for parking space. He said they do have an easement from Mr. Quast for parking purposes. Mr. Turbak said he thought the code required 57 spaces and that, if the employee parking were eliminated, they Counci!member Plufka question whether traffic generated would create a problem on the street. He said it was difficult to estimate how much Darkin~ would be needed 1. and whether the available parking space will support all the uses on the two pieces of property. Mr. Turbak was asked to furnish a copy of the lease for parking space to staff. The copy of the lease was then submitted. Following further discussion, Mr. Turbak stated that the ice cream store would not be open during the winter months - four months. Mr. Light, BH Properties, pointed out that the traffic would be able to flow through the site, exiting to the side street. The plan presented tonight is their proposal for more parking space as asked by Council at the last meeting. Concensus was that there could be a better solution to the parking needs. Mr. George Svolopoulos, owner of George's Cafe, said that the cafe is only busy a couple of hours during the day, the breakfast trade an~ again at lunch. He said that he closes the cafe at 3:00-o'clock p.m. ~.- ~ .... - ,- --~ ,. .... "~ The need to consider possible changes in'~e hOUrs of operation of the cafe was ' , pointed out. Mr. Svolopoulos replied that the site had .supported parking for a barber shop and for a full restaurant operation without a problem. Councilmember Plufka inquired ~as ~o whether -there was any assurance that the superette parking lot would be striped as shown. Following discussion as to whether the parking'~lan was correct, Mr. Turbak said that the lot would accomodate twice as ma~y parking spaces as shown. ~by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Otten to refer the matter hack t~.~taf7 ann to De~l~n and Review, l~_m'~essar¥~, to work with the petitioner ~_PDrK~n~ ~lternat~ves. with the ma~ter to qo back to Council f6~'the meetin~...--' Df January 26~ !981~ Voting in favor: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, Plufka Voting against: None · 1. ,Plan~inq Case No. 80-58~ continue9 frQm,,,th~_Dee~.inq,of ~anuarv 12. 1981. reauest for a cond~_i_~t~onal use ermit ~o__alo~_~q~~e_~at!o~of~D walklup, ice cream soft-toD .franchise at 718]_ 42nd Avenue N~r~b, was considered b ' . . Mr. Doug Turbak, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Council. Mr. Turbak said that, since the last meeting, the architect involved in the project had been able to sit down with city staff and prepare a drawing for the parking layout and traffic flow through the area involved. This is the reason the matter was tabled at the last meeting. The city manager said that the code calls for from 57 to 59 parking spaces, de- pending on how the code is interpreted, and that the petition shows 43 spaces on the parking layout. The Mayor said that he concurred with the Manager's comments that the superette does not generate much traffic. Two or three cars at the most seems to be the rule. It is a steady thing, but seldom do they have a lot of cars. Councilmember Enck inquired as to how the petitioner proposed to get access to spaces one, two and three, immediately west of the cafe. Mr. Turbak replied that those three spaces would be used by the employees, who will be the last to leave after buisness hours. He said they do not forsee a problem with those three spaces. Councilmember Enck then inquired as to how access to the trash receptacle would be gained. Mr. Turbak said that the diagram was very misleading to the extent that it appears to show that only one car could be parked, when, in fact, two cars can easily be parked between the building and the trash receptacle. Two cars could be parked in that area, and there would still be plenty of room for any size truck to drive in and dump the tras~ container. Inquiry was made as =o when the trash was collected. Mr. George Svolopoulos said that it was picked up every other day around 2:00 to 2:30 p.m. BV this time, the waitresses have ~one h~me. Mr. Turbak stated that, while~the diagram makes it appear like there would be a problem in getting to the trash receptacle, if you look at the site you would see that the dumpster is not in the parking area at all. Councilmember Plufka inquired as to whether the city had the necessary legal documents to show that, despite the different owners involved, the owners are in agreement as to the parking plan and that the lot will be striped as shown. Mr. Turbak replied that they did not have an agreement that the lot would be striped as shown, but, they do have the work or promise of the petitioner that they are going to stripe as shown. You would certainly expect them to follow ti~rough. As to the legal right to use the adjoining property, there is an easement which gives the ability to park there. He said he did not have any signed document by the adjacent property owner saying that he specifically approves of the parking layout. The reason for that is that he had not been able to get the diagram in front of Mr. Quast. It was not until last Friday that the diagram had been prepared. He had tried to reach Mr. Quast. Mr. Turbak said that Mr. Quast has expressed absolutely no hesitation as to the project and that he was sure Mr. Quast would be pleased with the layout. The city manager advised that striping of the lot could be tied to the occupancy permit. ~' -~',~ ~'. ';' . - .;., ,~.x)n by Councilmember Plufka, second by Councilmember Enck,_~v~e con- ~_~~,~-J_.O_ permit f.o.r the wq].k-t,tp ..it? cr_~am store 3~t 718! ~..~r~Luc.eLcd u?.der Planni nq Cpse~No_.q~__80-58~_~u~.g_~_.k!a occ%~p.~ncv hermit i.'arA request 7179 42ndWasAvenue.received for a temporary occupancy permit for Frosty Boy ice cream store .t/ i' Mr. Turbak, attorney representing Frosty Boy owners, acknowledged that they did not have'' anything in writing from the fee owner of the property to the east as to the parking easement. The fee owner is Mr. Stanley Peterson. Mr. Turbak said he had talked to Mr. Peterson at great length on the telephone. Mr. Peterson is very determined to sell his property as soon as he can; he has had it appraised, and he is morally, if not legally, Committed to sell it to the present occupant of the store, Mr. Dan Quast. However, he has not entered into a written agreement with Mr. Quast. Mr. Turbak said that he did not have any reason not to suspect that ~hat.~sale will. be closed sometime in the near future. ~he Mayor noted that the Council approval had been subject to the parking easement being obtained from the DEQ store owner. Mr, Turbak stated that they do have the right to lay out the parking area the way the New Hope Council has approved and, also, to have the traffic flow in the manner that has been approved. What they do not have is the right for this parking and traffic flow to continue into the unlimited future. They do have the present right. He said they have no reason to believe that the right will not continue. Discussion followed as to the possibility of granting a temporary permit until such ~i~e as the easement is actually obtained. ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~. ; The city manager informed the Council that when the petitioner was before Council last time, the cafe owner, George Svolopoulos, had said there would be no parking 1. problem because the hours would not conflict. The cafe was going to close at 3:00 p.m. Now they are staying open until 8:00 p.m. Mr. Dan Quast stated that, as the owner of the Superette, there was no problem with parking. Councilmember Williamson inquired as to the problem with refrigeration or sanitation. The Attorney stated that he was not aware of any such problem. He also stated that the problem as to laying out the parking related to the temperature. The weather is not warm enough to stripe, but it will be done as soon as the weather permits. The city manager inquired as to what type of instrument gave them the right to stripe the parking lot. Mr. Turbak said that the right to stripe the lot was derived from Mr. Quast, who has the right to occupy the premises. The city attorney said that, if Council wanted to take the position that the present occupant of the superette has the right to give a temporary easement, we do have a document that supports that easement. It is a private easement between the parties and can be terminated by the parties without notice to. the city. It would be possible to have a temporary occupancy permit which would be conditioned upon the . superette owner remaining in legal possession. If he does not acquire the fee title, then the permit could be terminated. The problem is that, in the long range, if Mr. Quast does not succeed in buying the property, the easement is only as good as the ownership of the contract purchaser. If the occupancy permit were made on a temporary basi% contingent upon the ownership.of the superette staying the same, there would not appear to be much of a problem. Coumcilmember Enck expressed concern with George's Cafe staying open until 8:00 when a covenant had been made, especislly with parking problems that arise during the day. This is a breach of the commitments made to this Council as to the capacity to maintain a non conflicting use of the property. We were also told that the easement for parking had previously been negotiated; now this is not true. Councilmember Enck then spoke against granting the temporary occupancy at this time. The petitioner should have the responsibility of presenting to Council all of the items covering these commitments, giving the Council the opportunity to evaluate the documents. Mr. Harvey Light, Frosty Boy'operator, said they had originally proposed confining their parking to George's parking lot. At that time, George had not intended to be open during the evening, council then said, at another meeting, that Frosty Boy should obtain some additional parking. Then they pursued the superette parking arrangement. This additional parking was obtained after George had made the commitment not to be open in the evening. Now the number of parking stalls has been doubled-approximately. There is also access out to the road through the DEQ lot which will further alleviate the traffic flow. Councilmember Enck-countered that the parking was never adequate in the first place. He said he was uncomfortable with the parking arrangements. Mr. Dan Quast noted that he had always permitted the overflow from the cafe to park around to the side of his store. ~ The Mayor inquired as to the schedule for the grand opening. ,~ %''b~r. Turbak said they would like to open within two weeks. ~he Mayor then inquired as to what would happen if the occupancy permit were issued on a temporary basis and then a problem developed. He asked if it would be possible for all the employees in the entire complex to park across the street in the bowling alley lot. Mr. Turbak commented that they are not asking the Council to prejudice itself or its · position. The Mayor asked what would happen if, at some time down'the liner the permit was revoked and the ice cream store had to go out of business. That would also be a possibility if a serious traffic problem did develop. He said the owner should be prepared for such a possibility. Then he could support a temporary occupancy permit. He again mentioned that arrangements might be made for the employees to park on the bowling alley lot. Councilmember Williamson inquired as to how long the petitioner had had to acquire the easement. ~j~./~ ._-~ ~-~:._ ~ Mr. Turbak said they had started the planning process last November, but he had not found out who the fee owner of the-real estate was until rather recently. It just 1. turns out t~at the Iee owner wants to sell it. .Mrl Peterson wants whoever buys the property to talk to the owners of Frosty Boy. Mr. Turbak again stated that, with a fair degree of certainty, is Dan Quast. Mr. Quast stated that he believed that 75% of the ice cream store business would be walk-in and business from his store customers. Councilmember Daly spoke in opposition tO the issuance of the temporary occupancy permit. He said he had voted in favor of the ice cream store earlier based on the statement that the cafe would be closing at 3:00 o'clock~ '~or~on by Councilmember Daly, second by Councilmember Williamson, to deny the issuance of a temporary occupancy permit for Frosty Boy as requested this meeting. Di~scussion followed with Councilmember Otten' inquiring as to the status of the ownership of the DEQ. Mr. Quast stated that he was the lessee. He said he had two.years left on the option, ·hat Mr. Peterson had the property appraised two weeks ago and that it is up for sale. He said he had operated the store for 18 years, and it is his intention to purchase. This should a]~ ~ ulace within the next three months. upon lnquiry, Mr. Quast said that the purchase o= the real estate hinged on the sale of his home. He said he does own the business; what he would be buying is the shell of the building and the land. Mr. Turbak said that if Mr. Light could not open his business, that space would probably sit vacant all summer. They have several thousand dollars invested in the business. It would not be surprising to find that, if they cannot open this summer, T_hey never will be able to open because they cannot afford that kind of a loss. Mr. Turbak continued that they were not asking for anything that had not already been granted. He said he, apologized for Mr. Svolopoulos opening his business until 8:00 p.m. He undoubtedly extended his hours to support himself and his family. This should not be held against him. It was suggested that Council might talk to George relative to cuttin= bmmW on his hours. Mayor Erickson then spoke against the motion to deny. He said he would preIer to issue a temporary permit for six months. If the purchase of the superette is completed within three months, there should not be a problem. Mr. Quast spoke on behalf of the owners of Frosty Boy, saying that they should be given a chance. Councilmember Daly stated that, in his opinion, two months ago Council was presented with a questionable traffic and parking situation. The conditions of the conditional use pernli~ which he had voted for in January, have not been met. Other business must meet conditions imposed. Frosty Boy was given a chance, but the agreement has been breached. The city manager clarified that the one condition for the conditional use permit has been provision of the parking easement. Co~ncilmember Otten spoke on behalf of the petitioner saying it was unfortunate ~hat a final agreement on parking was not available at this time. He said he was assuming that it was only on account of a pending sale that Mr. Light does ~ot hav~ the agreement_ He said he favored a 'temporary occupancy. ~ ~ The May~r spoke on behalf of the petitioners, noting that this was a problem ~rea, and that ice cream stores do not generally generate much traffic. He 'recommended that a temporary permit be issued for a six month period. Then it ~ould be looked at at the end of that six mont~s. te was then taken on the motion to deny. Voting in favor: Enck, Wi!liamson, Daly Voting against: Erickson, Otten 12. Motion by Councilme~er Daly, second by Councilmember Williamson to reconsider the request for a temporary occupancy permit for Frosty Boy. Voting in favor: Erickson, Daly., Enck, Otten, Williamson Voting against: None Motion declared carried ~'~:i ~--~--~ '~ '~ 12. The Mayor co~mented--th'~t he had forwarded a letter from the owners of the ~ bowling alley and from George's Cafe to the Councilm~mbers. He said Mr. Wendt had contacted him relative to trying to solve the problem. M/. Wendt advised Council that he had taken it upon himself to get letters from the owner of George'.s Cafe and from the bowling alley owners. The letter gives permission for the employees to park at the bowling alley. Also George Svolopoulos had indicated that he changed the hours of the cafe from 3:00 p.m. to an 8:00 p.m. closing. Mr. Svolopoulos has also indicated that if there is a problem, he will go back to the 3:00 p.m. closing of the cafe or even close up entirely, if necessary. Mr. Wendt asked that this be made part of the record. Mayor Erickson stated that George Svolopoulos had commented to him that he could make more money on the lease to Frosty Boy than on the restaurant and that he would close the restaurant if necessary. Mayor Erickson confirmed that the Frosty Boy season would normally run from this time of the year until October. He suggested that a temporary permit be granted until the end of October with the understanding that all of the employees would park over at t~e bowling alley. By the ~nd of October, perhaps Mr. Quest will have purchased the dairy store. The operation could be monitored during the temporary occupancy period to see if there was any traffic or parking problems. Frosty Boy would be able to recoup part of their investment and the city would be able to look at the impact of the operation. He. then said he favored the issuance of the temporary occupancy permit. Mr. Wendt stated that, if there was a problem, George's Cafe would be closed. It was clarified that the original conditional use was contingent upon an easement for overflow traffic to park on the dairy store lot. Mr. Quest had given an ease- ment, but inasmuch as he is not the fee owner, the easement would only be good for as long as Mr. Quast operated the dairy store. The Mayor also stated that Mr. Quast had again assured him that he does plan to purchase the dairy store as soon as possible and will then give the permanent park- ing easement. The city attorney clarified that the city does have a copy of an easement frem Mr. Quest which is good for as long as Mr. Quest operates the dairy store. This easement runs to George Svolopoulos. Mr. Quast does have a right to let George's traffic come over to the dairy store lot. Mr. Wendt said that he would like to have it on record that, if a parking or traffic problem deve]_ops, George is the one who would have to make the move and that George has ~de this com~itment. It was noted that this commitment was to Mr. Wendt, not to the city. Councilmember Enck spoke in opposition, saying that if there were someway the driveway to 42nd could be closed and the street to the east used instead, the problem would be reduced. He said Council should look at the traffic, including pedestrian traffic. Further discussion followed as to the zoning, children crossing the street, the chance of watching the situation if the temporary occupancy is granted, and the possibility of ever changing ingress and egress to the site.' Mr. Wendt said he agreed that there would be children crossing the street but that there would not be many cars con~J, ng to the store based on experience at the Spring Park store which is at least 75% walkup traffic. Councilmen~ber Enck said that he would be concerned with the walkup traffic, notin the large nubS)er of apartments to the north of 42nd. Further discussion follov;ed concerning the traffic now generated by the cafe and the dairy store. Mr. Wendt said that the Frosty Boy business was heavy on Saturday and Sunday. Upon inquiry, Mr Wendt said they planned to stay open until 10:30 or 11:00 p.m. Mr. Wendt state~ that Mr. Svolopoulos was in a position where the Frosty Boy must be allowed to open. He is willing to close h~s cafe to accomplish this. Councilme~.~ber Daly reviewed the history of the request for the Frosty Boy store, noting that the key item, as far as he is concerned, is that the cafe close at 3:00 p.m. so there is no conflict with the busier hours at the F~osty Boy.~ . Mr. Wendt said that. if the temoorary occupancy permit is granted, he will see 12. the parking lot is striped before they open the door for business. Councilmember Daly questioned whether they would actually get more than 30 parking spaces. He commented on what had been stated for the record as opposed to what actually had been done. Mr. Wendt replied that he also had been led to '~elieve that there was an easement from the fee o~er of the dairy store or he would not have invested in the ice cream store. Councilmember Daly said that he had moved for denial of the)OCCupancy permit at the last meeting because of the breach of the agreement for the conditional use permit as relates to the hours the cafe would be open. Further discussion followed with Mr. Wendt pointing out that he had not changed the cafe hours, and the Mayor noting that Mr. Svolopoulos has agreed to cut back on the hours. Councilmember Daly said that if Mr. Svolopoulos closed the ~afe at 3:00 o'clock as he had earlier stated, he would not object to the temporary occupancy. Question was raised as to the possibility of issuing a temporary occupancy permit for three months as opposed to through October. Comment was that the business would need a longer time to build up to the point where the traffic impact could be properly evaluated. The Mayor again spoke in favor of issuing the temporary occupancy permit through October and said that Mr. Wendt can request Mrl Svolopoulos to cut back the cafe hours. Upon inquiry, Mr. Wendt said that he had a $60,000 investment in the Frosty Boy store in equipment and remodeling. Motion by Councilmember Otten to a~Drove the temporary occuDancV for_Frosty Boy through November 13, 1981, subject to striDin~ of the Darkin~ lots, employees parking at the bowling alley lot and that the cafe cut back to a 3:00 p.m. closing. Sccond by Councilmember Williamson Councilmember Daly co~ented that Mr. Wendt must be aware that, if there is parking problem and ~4r~ Wendt does not have an easement to take care of it, Frosty Boy might be out of business. Further discussion followed as to what would happen if ~. Wendt lost the right to park at the dairy store during the period of the temporary permit. Mr. Wendt said he felt that they could get permission from whomever owned the dairy store to park on the dairy store lot. Vote was then taken on the question. Voting in favor: Erickson, Daly, Otten, Williamson Voting against: Enck .-~.~, ,~ ~ ~ ~' Motion declared carried ~ ~ ~"''~( ~ ' "~ The citF manager advised that a copy of a letter to George Svolopoulos from Stan Peterson's attorney (o~ner of the DEQ Superette at 7141 42nd Avenue) had been received. The letter informs ~r. Svolopoulos that the Peterson proper~z can no longer be used for parking for the Frosty Boy operation. ~...., "~' ~' .i,~ 21. Councilmember Daly asked for a cody of this letter. 8. Upon ~otion by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Daly that consideration of the ?equest to Dx_t.¢D~_~b~_~Qnditional use permit for the Fros%~ Boy ice cream store be held over for the next meeting. (The petitioner was not present.) Voting in favor: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, William$on Votin9 against: None ,. 15. Extension of the conditional us'e'pe~it tor the Prosty Boy store at 7179 42nd Avenue North was con- sidered by Council. The city manager advised that Frosty Boy was apparently closed and recommended that the best action to protect the city at this point, would be to deny an extension of the condi- tional use permit. Motion by Councilmember Enck, second by Councilmember Otten denying extension of the conditional use permit for F~sty Boy (Planning Case No. 80-58). Voting in favor: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, Williamson Voting against: None ~., .... , ~ ~tion declared carried. 1. PLANNING CASE 82-5 REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 7179 42ND AVENUE NORTH - GEORGE SVOLOPOULO$, PETITIONER Mt.Bob Wendt, owner of the Frosty Boy, represented Mr. Svolopoulos. He stated they now have a track record as far as volume at certain hours of the day. With the cafe closing in the summer months at 3:00 p.m., they feel that the parking does not create a problem with their busy time, which is 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Gustafson asked about parking considerations, noti6g that previously they had looked for a place for overflow parking. They had not been able to arrange parking at the dairy store and he did not see where they had any overflow parking space. Mr. Wendt said this was correct. The only thing they had been able to arrange was for the employees to park at the bowling alley. He said they had been open from April until the first part of September. They had experienced no problems. There had always been adequate parking, since the volume of customers was in the evening hours when the cafe was closed. ~n answer to a question from Commissioner Gustafson, the City Manager said there had been no traffic pro- blems that he was aware of. He added that there were two concerns, one was what the actual volume was, and whether the new operators of the cafe were in agreement with the closing of the cafe at 3:00 p.m. He said it was also his understandina that the operators of the cafe required 15 spaces.' 7. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with Mr. Wendt that there was a signed agreement wl~n the new opera- tors of the cafe that they would close at 3:00 p.m. The new operator said there was no such agreement, if they have to close, they will. It was noted that the purchase agreement specified a 3:00 p.m. closing. In response to a question from the CommOn, Mr. Wendt said there was no other option for extra parking. They had approached the apartment property to purchase some extra land but their land was needed for the apartment building, even though the owner had been willing to sell to them. He understood that the Superette had been sold to Tom Thumb but that it was presently vacant. Commissioner Gustafson asked if they had contacted the Vickers people? They had not. The City Manager said that the land at the rear of the station was now vacant. Mr. Wendt said this was worth pursuing. However, most of the employees are temporary and do not drive to work. Employees can park at the bowling alley. Commissioner Gustafson stated that parking was the real concern. He felt they should explore the park- ing at Vickers before they appeared before the City Council. He confirmed that Mr. Wendt understood that if staff determined at a later time that parking was a problem, he might be asked to close. Mr. Wendt said "yes", they had received approval in the same manner before. The Chairm~n commented that Commissioner Gustafson had raised some good points that had to be signed, sealed, and delivered kefore Planning Commission approval. He asked about the possibility of a table to allow them to contact Vickers and get a signed statement from them and the restaurant that they will close at 3:00 p.m. during the summer months. He asked if this seemed reasonable? Mr. Wendt said "no". Mr. Harvey Light stated that the ice cream store on Bass Lake Road was a very busy site and he had never seen more than 10 cars in that lot. He said he had never seen anyone park in front of the superette from the Frosty Boy store. A citizen commented that he had never experienced any problem with parking at the Frosty Boy. He had been in and out of ~here within five minutes. The present operator of George's stated that if there were only 20 spaces to park, George could only ac- count for five for the Frosty Boy. Mr. Svolopoulos stated that he had operated the restaurant last summer and the ice cream store had opened at 11:00 a.m. and he had seen only two or three people come for ice cream while the store was open. The business did not pick up until after 5:00 p.m., that's why they went broke, there was no business. The operator asked why he wanted to open again if there wasno business, that was silly? Mr. Svolopoulos replied it was building and he had to pay the rent. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion tabling Case 82-5 until the meeting of February 2, 1982. Commis- sioner Gulenchyn second.. Voting.in favor: Gulenchyn, Bartos, Cameron, Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None Absent: ~neelock, Friedrich Motion carried. Mr. Wendt asked if he could proceed before the City Council before the Planning Co~nission met again? He would like to open the store in March. The Chairman questioned what would be acomplished by this? Ne noted that the next Planning Commission meeting would be on February 2, 1982. The answer was "no", the Commission had the right to review as needed and make a recommendation before the petition went to the Council.~ - ''-' ~ ' ~.- , ~F/ ¢.PLANNING CASE 82-5 (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 5, 1982) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 7-t-7~-42ND AVENUE NORTH - GEORGE SVOLOPOULOS, PETITIONER Mr. Bob Wendt and Mr. George Svolopoulos were present. Mr. Wendt distributed a letter from the present operators of George's Cafe to the Commissioners. The letter (attached) stated that the cafe would close at 3:00 p.m. during the months that Frosty Boy would be in operation to avoid any parking conflicts. ,Mr. Wendt stated they had contacted the Vickers Company in regard to using some of their surplus space at the station across the street and had received a polite, but definite "no". Vickers intends to ex- pand their operation. He added that with the cafe closed he did not feel there would be any parking problem. Commissioner Gustafson commented that his main concern, and he felt of the other Commissioners, was the on-site parking. He asked ~at other options there were, now that the Vickers station would not let them park~ Mr. Wendt said there were no other options, other than the cafe being closed during Frosty Boy's peak hours. From 3:00 p.m. until closing (approximately 11:00 p.m.) they would have exclusive use of the parking lot. Commissioner Gustafson confirmed with the City Manager that there had been no complaints in regard to parking last summer when Frosty Boy was open. In response to a question from Commissioner Bartos regarding the status of the dairy store, Mr. Svolo- poulos said no one knew anything, supposedly it had been sold to Tom Thumb. He added in response to another question; that the hours of operation of the Frosty Boy would probably be 12:00 noon to i0:00 p.m., seven days a week. He will perhaps open in March, depending on the weather. He will be closed four to five months a year. Discussion followed on the percentage of customers that might stay on the site to eat. Mr. Wendt said there was one table on the patio in front of the store, but no space for seating inside the store. They did not feel that very many people stayed on the site to eat their ice cream. Sales were conducted from the walk-up window. The Chairman stated, for the record, that a letter had been received from Mr. and Mrs. Guillet, present operators of the cafe, that they would close the cafe at 3:00 p.m. during ~he months that the Frosty Boy was open. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommendin~ approval of the Conditional Use Permit requested for ~! ~k-70 42nd Avenue North, Case 82-5, snbject to the fact that the Plannin~ Co~mission ~ave permission, until the time that the health license came uu for renewal again. At this t~me staff will review the -~arking requirements on the site and nrinc the ma~ter in front of the Planning Commission and City Coun- cil if there is a problem. Co~missioner Edwards second. C9~c'~ ~-~-~ ~. ~ 4. Voting in favor: Gul~-n-¢hyn, ~arto~,~-~e~ ~s~-~f-~-~n, Gundersnaug, ~warus Voting against: None Abstain: Friedrich ~otion carried. 1. Pl~Dning Case ~o_~_2.r_5, [eques_ll from George Svolopoulos, _f_o_r a conditional use p~_rmjt to allow an ice sream store/cQnvenience fo__od e~tabMshment in a B-3_[o~]L_~_179 -__42~d.Avenue_N_orth, was con- sidered by Council. Mr. Bob Wendt and George Svolopoulos were present. Mr. Bob Wendt stated that the Planning Co~mission had recommended approval of the request. He then presented a letter from Geor? Svolopouios, dated January 5, 1982, providing information as to percentage of sales by time of oay during the last business season, ilr. Wenoc commented taat Mr. Svolopoulos woulo De operating the Frosty Boy store this year. Mr. Svolopoulos confirmed that he was buying the business and that he currently owns the building. Councilmember Otten commented that the big issue last year was traffic. He said the traffic had not been a problem. He asked what would be done, inasmuch as they are anticipating increased business, if there were a traffic problem. Mr. Wendt pointed out that George's Cafe was going to close at 3:00 p.m. which would alleviate any potential congestion in the evening hours. He said there was no additional parking to be had in the area. They had checked with Vicker's. Councilmember Otten then inquired as to the relation with the dairy store owners. Mr. Wendt said that they. did not know who was going into the dairy store. The store is new empty. They thought it was Tom Thumb. At this point they do not know whether parking would be available on the store site. The employees will be parking at the bowling alley lot. The cafe will close at 3:00 p.m. and will do so until the Frosty Boy closes in the fall. No one appeared in regard to this planning case. l~o_tion by Councilmember Enck, second by Councl ~memDer DaVy 9rant~n~ a conditional use permit to ~ermitthe operation of the Frosty Boy ice cream/convenience food store at 7179 42nd Avenue North, with the understanding that the city has a letter on file stating that the cafe wil-l~ o[~le~-3'.r~O0 ~.~-~hiie'~:he Frosty Boy is in operation, this being a volunta~y'-~'O'~m'i-~m-~-t,---~-~h-at-sh651d'~t}~e~e be a significant traffic or parking problem, the matter will come back to Council immediately. Fur- ther, the conditional use permit will be subject to review during annual licensing process. Vot(ng in favor: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, Williamson Voting against: None "~., ~', ?~ .....~ :F?~ ~ i .- Motion declared carried. ~ ' ( ' 5. PLANNINg3 CASE 83-17 REQUEST FOR CON~DITIONAL USE PEP~MIT FOR RETAIL/RENTAL ACTIVITY AT 7109 42ND AVENUE NORTH - LENNY DE MANN, PETITIONER Mr. DeMann was present and gave his address as 41111 133rd Lane, Ham Lake, Minnesota. He said he was requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow him to operate a video sales/rental facility at the stated address. It is an existing business. He needs the Conditional Use Permit because the property is zoned B-3. In response to questions from Commissioner Gustafson, the hours were stated as being 11 a.m. until 8 p.m., Monday through Saturday and 12 noon until 5 p.m. on Sunday. He noted that he was leasing the space from George Svolopoulos. Mr. Svolopoulos was not in attendance. Commissioner Gustafson asked what hours George was running the cafe. It was stated that they were usually 6 a.m. until 3 p.m. Mr. DeMann said he believed that the cafe was closed by noon on Sunday. Commissioner Gustafson then referred to the parking and asked what volume of traffic Mr. DeMann ex- pected. Mr. DeMann said that he had done a simple count and come up with 124 cars a week. There are usually no more than 3-4 at a time -- 42% of the business is on Saturday or Sunday. Saturday is his biggest day, Sunday is second. The next busiest time is Friday, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. There is 900 square feet total space, with 350 square feet being used for retail sales. The remainder is used for small office and storage. In answer to a question the City Manager noted that there had been no complaints ~bout the parking situation in the past couple of months. Commissioner Gundershaug asked about new signs. Mr. DeMann said that a siqn plan had been gl.yen to the Inspections Department and that he had seen a copy of the city Sign Ordinance. He had presented a scale drawing to the city staff. Commissioner Edwards noted that the city alregdy had George'.s hours of operation on record and he did not think it was necessary to qet it aqain.- ...... ' "" ~' .... ~ ~: 5. Commissioner Gustafson made a motion recommendin~ _a3~proval of the Conditional Use Permit requested in Case 83-17, subject to the hours of operation of c.(~.orQe's Cafe being as indicated on previous petition, and that the hour~ of retail activities for this activity bein9 11 a.m. to 8 }3.m. Monday through Satur- day and 12 noon until 5 p.m. on Sunday. Commissioner Friedrich second. Voting in favor: Anderson, Fridrich, Bartos, ~Gustafson, Gundershaug, Edwards Voting against: None ~' C ~ C~~' ~4 -~T~ ~ ~ ~ Absent: Dunn, GulenchYn, Cameron Motion carried. 3. P_l~a_n_.n~_~g_Case No. 83-17, request from_L~nny ue~ann for retaii/_re___n_tAl_a__c_t_i_v__i_t~ff__~%t__7_l~?__ 42nd Avenu~ North, was considered by the Council. Mr. Leny Del.lann said that he was asking for a conditional use permit to allow a video rental shop at 7109 4~2nd Avenue. The hours would be 14onday through Saturday, i1:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and on Sunday-from noon until 5:00 p.m. They would be handling rental tapes and rental machines. They do very little retail sales. Mr. DeMann said that they were not aware that they needed a permit when they moved in. Upon inquiry, Mr. DeMann said that they do not intend to add any other products. Councilmember Daly commented that the Planning Comzaission had stipulated the hours of operation in their motion. Mr. DeMann stated that there was no problem with the hours stipulated by the Planning Co[m-ai s s ion. Councilmember Willi~mson clarified that Mr. DeMann does not have any video games in the store. Mr. DeMann said he did not want any video games in his stores. No one appeared regarding this planning case. Councilmcmber Daly introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVI~G CONDIT. I_Oi~AL~._~_SE P_[_'~B~i!_T ~e_.__8_i~-] 7 ." The _m_o.~i_on for the adoption of the--~0-r-e- '-going res~iution was seconded by Councilmember Enck, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Williamson; and the follow- ing voted against the same: None; absent: Otten; whereupon the ~.~?_l_qt_%o_n__was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the mayor which was attested by the city clerk- treasurer. (Page Extract Book). (This conditional use p_qr.mit is sub ~ e~_c t. t-o---t..h-e.-h-o-u-r-s...v-o,-f---oP~-~a-~0n--,of- _G.e.o.,rg? '_$__C;~ re_ b. eing as indicated on previous petition and that t~ne retazifrentai saop hours ue[ng as stzpu- lated by the Planninm Commission). ~'~'~"~ :~-~-~'' '~ ~-~ .,. 9. PLANNtMG CASE 84-25 - REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT.TO CC~'~DIT!ONAL USE PE~tMIT TO ALLOW CHANCRE IN RESTAURANT oPERATING HOURS AT 7181 42nd AVE.~3E NORTH - STRATOS ATS~DACOS,PETITIONER. Mr. Atsidacom. stated he operated George's Cafe on 42nd AVe,hue North and he would like permission to expand his Operating hours until 9:00 p.m. " Ih-~nSw~=-to- a gUe~tlon-from Commissioner Anderson as to why he wished the change in hours, Mr. Atsidacos said that he was barely making it right now, and hoped to expand the hours to give him more business. It is basically a breakfast and lunch establishment, with no liquor or wine. Commissioner Anderson commented on the fact that they were short of parking spaces and that at the present time there is often parking on the street. The petitioner said that the employees parked on the side of the building toward the east -- two spaces. Chairma~ Ca~eron noted that this property has been a tortuous piece of property for the city, but that recently there had been no particular traffic complaints. He did not know what the afternoon traffic would do to the site, but he felt it was worth a try. If a problem was created, it would have to be changed. There was no one present in regard to this request. Noting he was concerned about parking during the winter months, especially from the video business, he suggested that staff review the parking situation in six months. Commissioner Anderson made a motion recommending approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Per, it to allow extenaed hours at the restaurant at 7181 42nd Avenue North, Case 84-25, with the stiuulacion that staff would review the ~arKing sltuatlon at slx month intervals. Com,mlssloner Friedrlcn seconu. Voting in favor: Anderson, Kolander, Friedrich, Bartos, Cameron, Gundershaug, Edwards, Lutts Voting against: None Motion carried. The City Manager reviewed for the commissioners, the recent developments with the Charles B. Edwards case, which had been tabled by Planning Commission the prevlous month. He noted that because of the I.~B request, and the need to adjust to new State regulations about the amount of money that could be reques~ed~ in an /~B, they had been forced to act quickly - before Septe.~er 1, 1984. This was the reason for the special meeting of Planning Co~ission. He added that the request for a variance for the tower, had been withdrawn, and it was to be lowered. They had met all of the contingencies that the Planning Com~ssion had set and construction approval was the only approval needed. Mr. Kolander and Mr. Edwards had attended the meeting. City Council subsequently approved the request. Chairman Cameron stated that he felt it had been an unfortunate set of circumstances. Plannina Case 84-25. request for amendment to the conditional use permit at 7181 42nd Avenue: Stratos Atsidacos .~r. Atsidacos appeared before Council requesting the conditional use restricting the hours of operation of 'his restaurant. George's Cafe, be amended from 3:00 to 9:00 p.m. He felt the expanded hours would help increase his business. The mayor advised that the original agreement had been that George's Cafe would accept the stipulation of shorter hours if the parking requirement (not enough) was waived. .~,~r. Atsidacos saidhe was aware of this but felt the additional hours would not cause any undue traffic problems The city manager advised Council that they have not had any significant problems with the site of late and staff is recommending reviewal on a six month or as complaints are received, basis. Councilmember Enck introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: "RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 84-25" Themotion forthe adoption ofthe foregoing resolution was seconded b~/, Councilmember Williamson and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Daly, Enck, Otten, Williamson; and the following voted against the same: None; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by the mayor which was attested to by the city clerk. (Page Extract Book) (7181 42nd Avenue North, George's Cafe) city of New Hope Planning Case Report Planning Case: 88-12 Request: Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval Location: 8801-8821 Science Center Drive Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Prudential Insurance Co. of America/Attracta Sign Date: June 7, 1988 CASE UPDATE 1. The Planning Commission reviewed this case at its May 3, 1988 meeting and tabled it because the petitioner was not in attendance. Staff notified the petitioner and they have agreed to be at the June 7, 1988 meeting. 2. The Planning Commission report dated May 3, 1988, is attached for the Commissioners' review. The sign plan meets all codes. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the comprehensive sign plan for the property at 8801-8821 Science Center Drive, as proposed in Planning Case 88-12. Attachments: Planning Case Report (5/3/88) city of New Hope Planning Case R~port Planning Case: 88-12 Request: Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval Location: 8801-8821 Science Center Drive Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Prudential Insurance Co. of America/Attracta Sign Date: May 3, 1988 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting approval of a comprehensive sign plan pursuant to Section 3.467 of the New Hope Code. 2. The property is leased to two tenants. Cinch (formerly TRW) leases the west two-thirds, and Keelor Steel leases the east one-third. 3. No variances are required given the proposed signage. ANALYSIS The sign plan is as follows: 1. Ground Signage Requirement Allowed Existing Proposed Compliance Number of signs 2 1 1 Yes Maximum area 40 sq. ft. 18 30 Yes (per sign) Maximum height 15 feet 6'-8' 6 Yes (approx.) 2. Wall Signage Requirement Allowed Existing Proposed Compliance Number of signs 3 1 1 Yes Maximum area 125 18 30 Yes (square feet) Planning Case 88-12 May 3, 1988 Page -2- 3. Directional Signage Two 3 square foot signs will be placed on the east wall to designate delivery areas. These signs are allowed by code. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the comprehensive sign plan for the property at 8801-8821 Science Center Drive, as proposed in Planning Case 88-12. Attachments: Sketch (4/29/88) Elevation (4/29/88) Sign Placement (4/29/88) Keelor Steel Ground Sign (3//18/88) Sign Placement (3/18/88) SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE City of New Hope Planning Case Report Planning Case: 88-15 Request: Text Amendment to Allow Religious Buildings in an I-1 (Limited Industrial) Zoning District Location: 9000 Science Center Drive Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Church of the Open Door/Timm Lundberg Date: June 7, 1988 CASE UPDATE 1. This case appeared before the Planning Commission at its May 3, 1988 meeting. Staff has attached the minutes of that meeting for the Commissioners' review. 2. Staff was asked to research whether a church could be accommodated in an I-1 zoning district without a text change. Staff maintains its position that because churches are not a permitted use, a text amendment would have to be made. A text amendment would affect all industrial zoning districts in the City. 3. Staff has checked with the cities of Brooklyn Center and Eden Prairie regarding the existence of churches in industrial districts. Brooklyn Center staff has indicated that a church leases office space in an industrial district, but there are no church services conducted on site. Eden Prairie staff has indicated that a church was allowed in an industrial district on a temporary basis. However, the church is no longer located in the industrial district and Eden Prairie staff has indicated that because churches are not a permitted use in the industrial zoning district, they do not anticipate this in the future. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the request to amend the New Hope Zoning Code text to allow church services in a Limited Industrial Zoning District, as proposed in Planning Case 88-15, because of the conflict with the comprehensive plan and the impact on all limited industrial zoning districts. Attachments: Planner's Report (6/2/88) Planning Commission Minutes (5/3/88) Planning Case Report (5/3/88) northwest associated consultants, inc. PLANNING REPORT. TO: Dmn Donahue FROH: A1 an 8rixius DATE: 2 June 1988 RE: Ne,/.~ Hope - Church of Open Door FILE NO: 131.00 - 88.06 BACKGROUND The Church of the Open Door ,.,Jishes to lease the building at 9000 Science Center [:,rive for the purpose of holding their services. This site is loca. ted ,..:.,i thin the Ne~...., Hope Science and Industry Park and is zoned I-1: General Industrial Di strict. The Ne,.,.~ Hope Zoning Ordinance allo~..,.~s religious institutions such as churches by conditional use perrnit only ,¢.,i thin residential zoning districts. As the ordinance currently exists., the chprch is prohibited from locating ,.,.,ithin the Industrial Park. To accornrr, odate the u. Jishes of the Church of the Open Door a zoning text amendment ,¢.Jould be required. CO~'IPREHENS I :..'E PLAN The l'qe~.,.J. Hope Comprehensive Plan identified the Science and Industry Center along High,.:..~ay 18 as the highest priority for full developrnent. The plan suggests that the City increase the potential for achieving full development by allo~....~ing corr, patible., non-industrial uses., the acceptable non- industrial uses are identified in the I-1 zoning District as conditional uses. These uses include professional offices, restaurants., rr, otels and cornrr, ercial-recreational facilities. Revie,;.~ of these uses indicate that they provide services that cornplerr, ents the other industrial park tenants and they can compatibly coexist in the industrial setting. 4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 41 O, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612) 925-9420 The New Hope Comprehensive Plan establ ishes the fol lowing goal s and pul i c i es. that i ndustr i al pa?'Ks deve 1 opmen t. Industrial Goals. o Provide for a sound industrial base for the City that L,.,i 1 1 be stable and on-going. o Concentrate industrial development in the existing industrial parks (Science and Industry Center., Olson, WinnetKa) . o Fully develop existing industrial parks. o Promote continued industrial development in order to create an expanded employrr, ent base and opportunity ~.,ithin Ne~ Hope. Industrial Pul icies 1. Continue to rnaintain and expand the City's industrial and cornrnercial tax base to assist in paying for needed services and in reducing tax impact on housing costs. 2. 1.4ithin econornic capabilities, provide those public services and facilities to NeL..., Hope industries to help ensure their satisfaction ,.,.~i th locating in the cornmun i ry. 3. Promote continued industrial development in existing industrial parks ~,..,hich have direct access to major h i ghJ..gays. 4. Encourage the development of compatible, non-industrial activities t.,.~ithin industrial parks in order to increase the potential utilization of undeveloped industrial park 1 and. 5. Identify industrial activities complementary to existing activities, and promote and facil irate the developrr, ent of such industries, in Net,.~ Hope. Investigate alternative fiscal incentives to attract ne,...J desired types of industries to Ne,..., Hope. 7. Promote the type of industrial developornent ,..,.,hich rnaxirnizes the return on City investments in public facil i ties and services. 8. Give due consideration to all potential physical implications and services and facility derr, ands (i. e., traffic generation, se,.,.,er and water demands, etc.) of any proposed industrial development. Based on the afore~,entioned pul icies., the introduction of a church into an industrial area does not appear to be consistent ~.Jith the hie,.,J Hope Comprehensive Plan. Z 0hllr'qG The p,Jrpose of the Ne,~J Hope Zonir, g 0rdinance is to promoted orderly gro~.Jth in a compatible land use pattern. In this respect, the hle~..., Hope zoning Ordinance divides the City into use districts and outlines performance standards to provide compatible land use patterns. The Industrial District, by nature, exists as a hom, ogeneous setting for industrial operations. The conditions inherent to these districts., eg, noise; dust., traffic, odors., etc. are recognized and are acceptable to businesses that locate there. This is the reason these districts are generally secluded from other less intense uses. This type of land use segregation benefi ts the industries in that they can freely operate ,.,.,ithout negatively irt, parting adjacent land uses. This freedom of operation is an incentive for the attraction of ne,~ industries and expansion of existing industries. Industrial parks also benefit from the priniciple of accumulative attraction, ,;.~hereby similar or complementary businesses located in a coma, on setting, each benefitting through business, interchange arr, ong the various industrial uses. Introducing an incompatible non-industrial use into this area may compromise the integrity of the industrial park setting and be contrary to the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance. The introduction of inco~,patible non-Industrial land uses into an area reduces the securi ty of the area and increases the potential for personal and property damages. Any incidents thay may occur could result in greater liabilities for the existing industries and subsequently higher insurance costs. In 1.984~ the City of Ne,.,~ Hope encountered such a cornpatibil i ty problem,; ~..,hen S.R. Harris introduced a non-industrial use (retail sales) into his industrial site at 5100 County Road 18. The introduction of this use into the industrial park ::.,as disruptive to the neighboring businesses and presented public safety concerns u~ith regard to traffic circulation and pm. rKing. The introduction of a church into an industrial district presents sir, ilar concerns AS. the previous case. ,.,.,hile church services may occur during off peak operational hours of most b,Jsinesses, other services provided by a church facil i ty do occur during times other than Sunday. The i'.~e,~., Hope Zoning Ordinance allo,....,s public, semi-public, education And religious facilties in all residential zoning districts by conditional ,asr per. m,i t. The rationale for this zoning designation is two fold. First., the facilities are intended to. be intergraded into the surrounding residential neighborhoods and provide a _..~r'uice tc, community r'esiden~=. Secc, r.~dly, educational and religious facilities typically benefit from a tranquil and quiet enuironrnent ~,..~hich is best prouided in a residential setting. The zoning ordinance requires these facilties to obtain a conditional use permit to insure that these facilties are properly designed to co-exist ~,-Jithin the residential neighborhood. Proper church site planning must consider the total operation of the facil i ry. Items such as parking and circulation havve signiificant impact on the church site as E. gel l as adjacent street and properties. The buffering from incomptible uses is cfi tical in both the operatin of the church and the safety of the Church members. The introduction of a church into a site and building designed for industrial use does not al lou~, proper attention to the operational needs of the church or the impacts that it may haue on adjacent properties. TA]~ E;~ E~"IPT I Another issue created by the introduction of churches into an industrial area is its impact on the established tax base. Tax exernpt status is available to churches. This tax designation ,.gould result in the loss of current industrial tax revenues. The irr, pact of a single church may not be significantly negative, ho~.....,e,-..,er, a change in the current ordinance ~,~,ould establ ish the avenue for other churches in the future. The previously mentioned tax issues are contrary to the City of l, Je,~.~ Hope's Cornmunity Deueloprnent Plan, ~.....,hich addresses industrial poi icies. One pul icy is: "Continue to maintain and expand the City's industrial commercial tax base to assist in paying for needed services and reducing tax impact on housing costs." CONCLUSI ON Based on our pevie~.~, churches do not appear to be a use that ,/.~ould compatibly co-exist ,~..~ithin the City's industrial districts. The introduction of a church into a industrial district ,.,..~ould be contrary to the directiues of the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the Cit.'.,' industrial zoning distict. The church of the Open door is. pursuing the industrial site as a ternporary site to hold seruices, ,..ghile they ~.uait to construct a permanent church in another community. In considering this text change, the City must evaluate what benefit the Cit.'.'.' will obtain from change. 1. The church of the Open door is proposing to located in site and I:,uildir, g not designed f6r. church services or the assembly of people. 2. The church is. el igible for tax exempt status which could reduce the City Industria. l tax base. 3. The church is not currently proposing constructing the Jr ne~,., church Jn Net,., Hope. 4. Based on past experience, the introduction of non- compatible uses in the industrial park have resulted in traffic and safety problems. 5. The further proliteration incompatible non-industrial uses in the industrial parking ,...~ill negatively impact the image of the area and make future Industrial marketing and development difficult. In contacting Haple Grove and Plyrnouth, we find that these Cities to ,.ghich the church of the Open Door ir, tends to rr, oue does not allo,.~: churches in their industrial districts, as such they would not be able to acornrr, odate the church on a temporary basis Jn the manner being requested in New Hope. cc: ,]eannine Dunn Doug Sans. tad Steve Sondral -11- ~PC Lundberg petitioner, The Church of The represented' 88-15 Mr. Tim the Pd~I~ST F-~R qmD~ Open Door. He stated that the church is outgrowing the ~ TO AT~ space they are presently occupy~ on Sur~___ays at Cooper High I~k~.TGIC~3S ~3TTn//~GS High School. They have investigated building their own IN AN I-1 Zf~E AT church build/ng but it is financially impractical. 9000 ~ C~qTER The church would like to purcb~e the building at 9000 Science Center Drive and use it for all of the activities. It is large enough for their purposes and is also within their financial reach. It is their feeling that the greatest impact to the area would be on Sunday, when there could be as many as 400 cars in the area. There is little other traffic in the area on Sunday. They would like to stay in the New Hope neighborhood because they feel the church and its programs have a positive impact on the neighborhood. As well as its Sunday services (two at the present time) they have a food ministry, offer emergency financial help, have a counseling service, and have a singles ministry involving approximately 400 people. Mr. Lundberg noted that he did not know where they could find a facility large enough to support their operation in a residential zone. Mr. Fred Peterson, spoke in support of the church's impact on the community, and the need that he felt they filled in the neighborhood. He noted that a recent study had indicated that the New Hope and surrounding area had been second only to Minneapolis, in terms of need for the services offered by the church. The average age of their congregation is 25-35 years of age. He repeated his hopes that they would be allowed to remain in New Hope. rIn response to questions from Chairman Cameron Mr. Lundberg stated that the building bas 58,000 sc?~e feet of warehouse space with approximately 15,000 square feet of office space. They feel the~v could begin using it immediately with interior remodeling completed in the future. There are already bathrooms and conference rooms but they would have to partition off a worship area. Chairman Cameron confirmed that it is a "stand open" building. Mr. ~ stated that there are presently 150 parking spaces on the site, but that there is additional paved area that could be converted to parking if necessary. There is also 78,000 sc~]~re feet of green area at the rear of the site. Planning CommissionMinutes May 3, 1988 -12- Chairman Cameron stated that at the present time City Code does not have any rules governing this type of use in this zone. He added that the c~mmission and city had to decide the issue in a larger context and could not play favorites. Any ruling on text change would have to apply to everybody. He confirmed that the building would probably be used 24 hours a day and would be the church's main headquarters. Mr. Lundberg said that during the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. there would most likely not be more than 20 cars on the site. If the church were to leave the building, the city would once again have an industrial site available. He did not feel the city would be setting a precedent by allowing them to locate in the warehouse, since churches do not usually "nest" in an area. He repeated that he felt that for a church the size of theirs, he did not think it was practical for them to move into a residential area. They presently have between 1700 and 1800 members and are still growing. In his opinion their impact would be less at the proposed location than in a strictly residential area, particularly with traffic. Commissioner Anderson stated that the city also had to be concerned about removir~ the property f~-om the tax rolls. The city cannot change the text to acco~L,,~xiate one use in one building. Any change in text would effect all similar zones. In response to a question reg~dir~ the length of time the church might stay at the proposed site, Mr. ~ answered that they would stay there~ as long as it met their needs- they have'a five year plan. In response to a question from Co-~mmissioner Anderson regarding the possibility of the church being given temporary approval to locate in the w~rehouse, Ms. Dunn stated that the Code could not permit this for one church and not another. She ~ stated that the city does have a current list of properties available for development, but that the church re~i res a large piece of property which is zoned residential. City Code does not permit religious uses in an industrial zone. Conmtissioner Gundershaug confirmed that the church presently has two services on Sundays at the Cooper High School location. In response to questions f~-om the C~airman, Mr. Lundberg stated they have been leasing Cooper High School for $60,000 a year for five hours a week. They use the auditorium and Planning Con.~,~ssion Minutes May 3, 1988 several classrooms. ~heir offices are located at 45th/Florida in Crystal. Cooper is anxious for them to ~acate the site and there have been traffic and parking problems there. Coa,,~[ssioner Gundershaug asked whether the city could not issue a Conditional Use Permit for this property? Ms. Dunn stated that it was the City Planner's opinion that this would affect all I-1 zoning district. Commissioner Gundershaug indicated he saw some merit in issuing a Conditional Use Permit for this use, rather than making a text change. Cha~ Cameron questioned whether was not some way to help the petitioner so that he would not have to move. Co~m~Hssioner Friedrich asked whether staff could check with other cities to research how they had handled similar situations. f~airman Cameron stated he felt this case would have to be tabled. A month would give additional time to explore other avenues. In his opinion a text change was asking too much of the city but he would like to know if there were any other options to solve this problem. He added that the city did not change ordinances lightly. l~JUION Com,~Hssion Anderson made a motion t~blir~ C~se 88-15 until the Jume 7, 1988 Plannir~ Om,,.~ic~ Meeting. Co~.~missioner Sonsin second. The Design and Review Co~m~,~ttee held one meeting this month. Codes and Standard Committee did not meet in April Following discussion, the concensus o~ the Co~mission was that the Codes and Standards Committee should meet in the near future to review the issues in Case 88-15. The meeting will be scheduled. The Planning Co~,~ssion Minutes of April 5, 1988 were accepted as printed. Planning Co~m~ssionMinutes May 3, 1988 City of New Hope Planning Case Report Planning Case: 88-15 Request: Text Amendment to Allow Religious Buildings in an I-1 (Limited Industrial) Zoning District Location: 9000 Science Center Drive Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Church of the Open Door/Timm Lundberg Date: May 3, 1988 BACKGROUND 1. The Church of the Open Door and Durkee Atwood are requesting a text amendment to allow a church in an I-1 zoning district. This request is made pursuant to Section 4.231 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. The Church of the Open Door is currently using the Cooper High School to conduct its Sunday church services. The City approved a conditional use permit for this in January, 1988 (Planning Case 88-03). 3. Property owners within 350' of the site have been notified. Staff has received no comment. ANALYSIS 1. The Planner's report is attached. 2. A change in the text would affect all limited industrial zoned properties. 3. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve this case, it should be referred to staff and the Codes and Standards Committee for study and preparation of a text amendment. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the request to amend the New Hope Zoning Code text to allow church services in a Limited Industrial Zoning District, as proposed in Planning Case 88-15, because of the potential conflict with the comprehensive plan and the impact on all limited industrial zoning districts. Attachments: Planner's Report (4/26/88) Petitioner's Application (4/15/88) City of New Hope Planning Case Report Planning Case: 88-16 Request: Preliminary Plat Approval and a Variance of Four (4) Feet to the Required Seventy-five (75) Foot Lot Width Location: 8115-8121 62nd Avenue North Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Petitioner: Carlton T. Swartwood Date: June 7, 1988 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting approval of a preliminary plat and a variance of four (4) feet to the required seventy-five (75) foot lot width pursuant to Section 4.033(1) - New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. The Hazel Hill Plat was recorded in December, 1913. Although we have no building permit data, staff thinks that the home located on the east lot may have been built between 1920 and 1940. Please note that a corner of the home encroaches into the west lot. The petitioner is proposing to re-plat and move the existing property line 10 feet to the west so that the existing home can be maintained, and a new home can be built on the west lot. The proposed movement of this property line requires a four (4) foot variance. The new lot will be seventy-one (71) feet wide and the code requires a seventy-five (75) foot minimum width for single family residential lots. 3. Property owners within 350 feet have been notified, as well as Minnegasco, Northern States Power, Northwestern Bell, ~Hennepin County, and Northwest Cable TV. Staff has received no comment to date. ANALYSIS Site Data 1. Section 4.035 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances identifies the minimum area for lots. The standards for single family residential zoning district, and the proposed plat are as follows: Planning Case 88-16 June 7, 1988 Page -2- Width Area Standard 75 feet 9500 sq. feet Lot 1 91.94 feet 13,791 sq. feet Lot 2 71.53 feet 10,730 sq. feet While Lot 2 is deficient on width, the area of the lot exceeds the minimum standard. 2. The proposed movement of the existing lot line by ten feet will correct the non-conformity of the existing single family home. 3. The petitioner has designed a home that would not require any variances to build. It is important to note that approval of a plat with a variance does not suggest that staff is supportive of any variance to accommodate the new home. 4. Staff has reviewed other options that the petitioner may have to avoid the need for a variance. Staff has found that the only alternative left for the petitioner would be to demolish the existing home at 8121 62nd Avenue North. In considering the variance criteria established in Section 4.22 of the New Hope Code, we feel that the petitioner has met the criteria because of undue hardship created by the location of the home a 8121 62nd Avenue North. It is clear that the west lot will not be developed if a variance is not granted. Staff also believes that the variance will not set a precedent and that the petitioner's proposed use of the property is compatible with the intended zoning classification. Enqineering 5. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed plat. His comments are attached. Please note that in regard to his comments, staff has confirmed the location of an existing storm sewer and has found that it is located within the ten (10) foot drainage and utility ~ easement (west side of proposed Lot 2). Staff has determined that the existing easement is adequate. Planning Case 88-16 June 7, 1988 Page -3- RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and a variance of four (4) feet to the required seventy-five (75) feet as proposed in Planning Case 88-16 because the petitioner has met the preliminary platting requirements of Section 13.031 and the variance criteria established in Section 4.22. Attachments: Proposed Plat (4/28/88) Proposed Plans (2) (5/8/88) City Engineer's correspondence (5/26/88) CITY OF NEW HOPE · .~.~ Denotes E~isting Elevation ~'?.. NO AVEH U6. NO 6Lq'H ..... ~ I Specifications Subject To Change ~'~'~"~(~' '~ ~' ~7 O, (~ Copyright © 1985 Dynamic Homes, Incorporated ~=~Dynamic Optional features illuslr~tod, consult your builder. Homes, ~ ,. FIREPLACE · BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 i MASTER BEDROOM . .. o ~,0 x 24.0 ~~ ~:" ,. l'c .:.: ,:.I,.... ~' , ~. ,,r .' 1152 sq. ff. (Main ~ UpPer Level). 3LargeBedroom,KitchenSplit w/SnackLevel Bar · His ~ Hers Master Bedroom Closets Dy Specifications Subject To Change namic © o ~2 Copyright © 1985 Dynamic Homes, Incorporated Optional features illustrated, consult your builder. Homes, ~ :~. ~ ~i . Otto (3. Bonestroo, RE. Keith A. (jordon, RE. Thomas ~,V. Peterson, RE. Charles A. Erickson Bonestroo Robert W. Rosene, P.E.Richard ~ Foster, RE. Michael C. Lynch, RE. Leo M. Pawelsky Joseph C. Anderlik, RE. Donald C. 'Burgardt, RE. James R. Maland, FiE. Harlan M. Olson Rosene Bradford A. Lemberg, RE. Jerry ^. Bourdon, RI:. K .... th R Anderson, RE. Susan M. Eberlin i Richard E. Turner, RE. Mark A. Hanson, RE. Keith A. Bachmann, RE. Mark A. Seip James C. Olson, P.E. Ted K. Field, RE. Mark R. Rolls, , naer. K is, (3,enn R. Cook, P.E. Michael T. Rautmann, P.E. Robert C. Russek, ~s it-- soc'a-es Thomas E. Noyes, RE. Robert~R. Pfeffede, RE. Thomas E. Angus, RE. Robert G. Schunicht, RE. David O. Loskata, RE. Howard A. Sanford, RE. Marvin L Sorvala, RE. Engineers & Architects May 26, 1988 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue No. New Hope, MN 55428 Attn: Ms. Jeannine Dunn Re: Hazel Hill Third Addition Our File No. 34 Gen. Dear Jeannine, I have reviewed the above plat and the only concern I have is relative to the existing 10' wide drainage and utility easement located alonE the plot's east line. A 9" diameter sanitary sewer presently exists in this easement. Based on the manhole location in the sidewalk, it appears the sewer favors the west- erly side of the easement. Therefore, dependent on the new house location and the fact it can be built adjacent to the easement line, the existing sanitary sewer could be affected by the excavation of a new house. In addition future maintenance of the sewer by Public Works could be restricted dependent on the location of the new house. Therefore, the location of the existing sanitary sewer must be verified in the fiel'd both vertically and horizontally to de- termine if the existing easement is adequate. If the existing easement is not adequate additional ~asement may be required. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly~ BONESTR00,~OSE~, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mark A. Hanson MAH:li cc: Roger Paulson Doug Sandsted 2335 West Highway 36 · St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 ' 612-636-4600 City of New Hope Planning Case Report Planning Case: 88-17 Request: Variance of Five (5) Feet to the Required Ten (10) Foot Setback for Parking Areas in an I-1 Zoning District and Construction Approval Location: 9401 Science Center Drive Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Hoyt Development (Gary Lally) Date: June 7, 1988 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a variance of five (5) feet to the required ten (10) foot setback for parking areas in an I-1 zoning district, pursuant to Section 4.145(4) - New Hope Code of Ordinances, and construction approval. 2. Note that the petitioner is proposing to develop this property as a single lot. The Commission may remember that this lot was proposed to be divided into three lots in 1987 (Planning Case 87-16). The process was not completed because the plat was not filed. This property remains as a single parcel of land. 3. Property owners within 350 feet of the proposed development have been notified. Staff has received no comment to date. ANALYSIS 1. The petitioner met with the Design and Review Committee and has revised the plans twice since that time. The Planner's report is attached but was completed prior to the second plan revision. Staff has corrected the report as needed and additional comments are below. Site Data 2. The petitioner's revised site plan reveals the following: Lot Size: 272,468 square feet Building: 74,758 square feet (27.4%) Green: 95,908 square feet (35.2%) Surfaced: 101,903 square feet (37.4%) Planning Case 88-17 June 7, 1988 Page -2- Parking 3. Parking requirement is based on 45% of the building being utilized as office, and 55% as warehouse. As a result, 188 spaces are required and 199 spaces have been provided. Siqnage 4. In addition to the planner's signage suggestions, staff has noted that the southwest driveway is partially blinded by a railroad trestle. Staff suggests that signage identifying this problem be installed. City Enqineer's Comment~ 5. The City Engineer's comments are attached to this report. It should also be noted that because this site exceeds five (5) acres, the review by the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission is required. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the request for a five (5) foot variance to required ten (10) foot setback for parking areas in and I-1 zoning district, and construction approval subject to the following conditions: 1. That additional traffic circulation signage is provided prohibiting truck entry on the northeast entry; signage prohibiting truck stopping/unloading for vehicles over twenty (20) feet unless such vehicles park parallel to the building; and signage identifying that the southwest driveway is partially blinded by the railroad trestle for exiting vehicles. 2. That the trash areas be widened from ten (10) feet to twelve (12) feet. 3. That additional landscaping be placed along the east property line. 4. That grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to comment and further review by the City Engineer. 5. That this development be forwarded to the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission for review. Planning Case 88-17 June 7, 1988 Page -3- Attachments: City Engineer's Memorandum (6/3/88) Planner's Report (6/2/88) Certificate of Survey Site Plan Elevation Plan Grading/Drainage Plan Landscape Plan MEMORANDUM. DATE: June 3,1988 TO: Jeannine Dunn, Administrative Assistant FROM: Mark Hanson, City Engineer SUBJECT: Hoyt Development 1. Ponds & storm sewer need to be properly sized to insure outflow to County Road 18 does not exceed capacity of existing storm sewer in County Road 18 in accordance with Hennepin County. Storm sewer calculations must be provided. 2. Because runoff from other properties drain into the ponding areas, ponding easements must be dedicated on the plat to the 100 year high water level. A utility easement is also required over the storm sewer interconnecting the two ponds. In addition, because these ponds will be responsibility of the City, no spillways will be allowed. Catch basins with storm sewer discharging into the ponds are required. 3. It appears the northerly ponding area is a dry pond. Dependent upon the storage requirements, a wet pond may be desirable. 4. The east-west storm sewer along the Soo Line Railroad must be extended with the Soo Line Railroad right-of-way to maintain drainage approximately 125' to the southeast. BeCause this storm sewer also drains other properties, an easement must be provided over this east-west storm sewer to the ponding area. The drainage area tributary to this storm sewer must be incorporated in sizing the westerly ponding area along County Road 18. 5. Due to the grading and storm sewer construction in the railroad right-of-way, a permit will be required from the Soo Line Railroad. northwest associated consultants, inc. PhANNING REPORT TO: Dan Donahuo FRO~: Kon Roberts/~lan Br±x~us DATE: 2 June 1988 RE: New Hope - Hoyt Development Plan FILE NO: 131.01 - 88.17 BACKGROUND Hoyt Development Company has submitted a set of development plans for a proposed office/warehouse building in Science and Industry Park in northwest New Hope. The lot in question is in the northeast quadrant of the Soo Line Railroad and the frontage road of County Road 18. The property is 6.26 acres and is zoned I-l, limited Industrial District. Exhibits A, B, C, D and E are copies of the submitted plans and are attached for reference. CASE ANALYSIS Lot Size and Width: Exhibit A is a survey of the proposed site. The site is 6.26 acres in size and has a lot width of 180 feet. These dimensions exceed the I-1 lot area and width performance standards. Lot Coverage: As noted above, the property in question is zoned I-1 and a office/warehouse building is a permitted use in this district. The Zoning Ordinance permits a maximum building coverage of 40 percent of any one lot. The plan as shown in Exhibit B has an approximate lot coverage by the building of-~ percent, well within the limits of the Ordinance. ~oc Green Space: I-1 lots are required to maintain 35 percent of their lot area for open green space. Although the applicant's site plan notes compliance with the 35 percent requirement, our office has estimated approximately -3~-percent of the lot shown on the site 4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 410, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612) 925-9420 plan was reserved for green area.~ The discrepa~Luy in the c~i~ui~tluL~ mdy b~ attributed to small design discrepancies ............................ F~ ~". if LIL~ developer cannot document compliance with the 35 percent requirement, a site redesign must be pursued to provide additional green space. Building Setbacks: Review of the building layout reveals that it meets all required setbacks for the I-1 zoning district. Parking and Site Circulation The property in question is "L" shaped with frontage on Science Center Drive and on the east frontage road of County Road 18 (see Exhibit ~). The proposed building and parking lot design are such to maximize the access points to the streets and to serve the needs of the building. The truck circulation is intended to move one way from the frontage road along the south edge of the site around the building to Science Center Drive. The truck loading docks and the building have been designed with this in mind in a manner which appears generally acceptable. ~n additional "no truck entry" sign should be placed adjacent to the eastern curb cut to maintain the one-way truck traffic movement on the eastern side of the site. A concern does arise however, with the overhead doors shown in the southwest and northeast corners of the building in Exhibit C. If large trucks (longer than 20 feet) have backed straight up to these as shown, the potential for blocking the drive aisle is great. If these particular spaces are only going to be served by small trucks or vans [o~ deliveries or pick-ups than this design would not appear to be a concern. Signage on the building near the overhead doors requiring the drive aisle area remain open for easy traffic movement is a possibility for managing the narrowness of these areas. Trucks may also be able to use parallel parking along the building edge to stay out of the drive aisle. Section 4.037 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding off- street loading does not require every tenant space to have a loading dock designed especially for semi-tractor trailers. The City may choose to approve the plan as submitted with the condition that trucks will not be permitted to block the drive aisle or require the redesign of the building to set the loading bays out of the way of traffic as the other bays on the plans are shown. Ail parking stalls are shown at ~t by 19 feet, in conformance with City standards. The drive aisles and curb cuts are shown at 24 feet wide, also in conformance with City standards. According to the subm~ed plans, ~he building use will be 45 percent office and 55/percent warehouse'. As such, the building ~s shown requires ~ ~arking sta~ls. The p~ns show.zu£~alls, thus just exceeding the zoning ordinance parking requlremenL~i~~ The submitted site plan reveals that the number and location of curb cuts meet code. The parking lot will be constructed with bituminous surface. Concrete perimeter curbing will be required around the entire parking lot. The I-1 zoning district requires a 10 foot parking lot setback from all property lines. The site plan shows compliance with this setback except along the southern lot line. The noncompliance with this setback requirement will require the pursuit of a variance. The application of a variance for this setback may be acceptable, being that this side of the lot abuts the railroad track and no parking is being proposed on this side of the building. As such, the impact of the reduced setback is mitigated. The New Hope Zoning Ordinance allows a variance to permit relief from the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance performance standards to mitigate a non-economic hardship that is unique to the property. Hardships may exist by reason of narrowness, shallowness or shape of the specific parcel. The applicant's site configuration and its proximity to the railroad tracks is .unique to the site, and a variance from the setback standard would not be contrary to the intent or reason for the setback standard. We would highlight that favorable consideration of this setback variance should be contingent on the site compliance with the required 35 percent green space standard. Trash Handlinq A trash storage area is shown in the southwest corner of the site adjacent to the building. The size of this facility appears appropriate but its location and practicality raises some concerns. It does not appear to be directly accessible from the tenant space and thus, not very practical from a use standpoint. It is to be constructed of block matching the principal building with wood doors for access. The submitted plans also note that interior trash storage for individual bays is to be provided. These should adequately serve this building, thus the need for a central handling facility is a question to our office. Additionally, the access from the drive aisle to the storage area is shown at a 10 foot width. This should be 12 feet wide to ensure that trucks may have easy access to the dumpster. Landscaping The submitted landscape plan (Exhibit E) shows a variety of trees and shrubbery on the site with sodding and seeding of grassy areas. The plan appears generally acceptable although more plantings could be provided along the east property line. The City may wish to require additionaI trees and/or shrubs in this area as very little is currently shown. Exterior Lighting Notes regarding the proposed exterior lighting for this building are shown on the site plan. The City Building Official should check these for appropriateness. Signage Two monument signs (one per street frontage) are shown on the submitted plans. No details on their size or materials have been submitted at this time. These signs shall be required to conform with City requirements and should be subject to staff review and approval prior to their construction. Two traffic flow signs are proposed on the site. As noted earlier, we would suggest a third sign be added at the northeast entrance. This sign should prohibit truck entry at this point. Due to the one-way circulation system, all truck traffic should enter the site from the Highway 18 frontage road. Building Materials As was noted earlier, the primary building material is shown to be rock faced concrete block. Additionally, opaque glass is shown above all entrances of the building on its west and north sides. The proposed building appearance is consistent with the other industrial buildings in the area. Grading and Drainage A grading and drainage plan has been submitted (Exhibit D) which shows a ponding area in the northwest and southwest corners of the site. This plan should be reviewed by the City Engineer for compliance with City requirements. The plan intends to drain all stormwater into an on-site drainage system that leads into the southwest ponding area and then released in the City's storm sewer. It is also understood that a drainage problem currently exists in the southeast corner of the site in conjunction with the site to the east. Based on the proposed grading plan storm water collecting on the eastern site and the railroad right-of- way would be trapped without a drainage outlet. The proposed grading and drainage should address this long standing problem. CONCLUSION From a general design concept, the site layout is well conceived for this irregular lot, however, a number of design items must be addressed as follows: 2. The applicant must pursue a variance from the 10 foot setback on the south side of the property. 3. Additional traffic circulation signage should be provided. This new signage should direct all truck traffic to enter the site from the Highway 18 frontage road and to prevent truck traffic from obstructing the southern driveway. 4. Access to the trash handling equipment should be widened to allow truck access. 5. Additional landscaping is suggested along the eastern property line. 6. Grading and drainage of the site should address stormwater retention in the southern portion of the applicant's site and the adjacent site. cc: Jeanine Dunn Doug Sandstad KR/AB/nd SCIENCE CENTER BUSINESS CENTER r ll \\ : .... . -~ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY . 1 ~'::. ~ LEGAL DESCriPTiON ~. } LOT 2, BLOCK 1 "~- ~' BRANDELL THIRD ADDITION < BUSINEssSCIENCE CENTERcENTER ->' ""';'"'"'; ....... ~' P~:'"':: :~;'" ...... ........ '" .2 ........ ' ...... NEW HOPE, MINN. ,,..~¢ ~._: , . ...... .\ ...,.,., . 71 .. .."~ i , ,...::,,:,,:i~ ........... :. 7 1 r-- I! ~-~-_ .?~i r---I .... I~ J ~ L_.i ....... r II :';":~,, ~ ~ ' _ ~ ,___!_j -___~ \ . r~ ~ i~:I ........... , .... 'l / --' x I'll :.~ I ----,- ..... i; ...... ---':'~ ....... ~--..., .?.iii ' "" t4'-7'-']" ....... ' Z <° -- .,: .... ,~,,, i ~-"'- -, · / !! t 0 ,.=~. , ,,.' ....... ~---'1I i : ; '/ ' ~' I ............ -' I~ - -~ ~... ; j~ ~ ,N. \ .... , ..... x \---: ~ .... ' .......... ::) ,~, A ~ _ &., ............ , -, · "?. " - '-~ ,iii!" Plant Material --~. . ........ ~.;~ , ? .. .. ~ ~ I . -.~- ,, .,, ~,~. ~ ', i I ] I ,